David Mundell: I think that it can be said that my party has learned from bitter experience that there is no easy answer to financing local government in Scotland. However, the answer is definitely not a local income tax or a property tax, which would result in working families paying thousands of pounds more in tax. As ever, the First Minister has prevaricated on the matter, but given the expectation that the Lyons report will recommend the introduction of a property tax for England and Wales—such a tax is to be introduced in Northern Ireland—is not the reality that a property tax is a fait accompli if Labour are returned to power in the Scottish Parliament elections?

Douglas Alexander: I am well aware of the important work that the Irvine Bay company anticipates undertaking, given that that was an area of Scotland devastated by two recessions in as many decades under the Conservatives. As regards traditional manufacturing, I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome the comments of Dr. Peter Hughes, the chief executive of Scottish Engineering, who said on 1 December:
	"Our industry is feeling a higher level of optimism than for some time",
	but as my hon. Friend recognises, the challenge is not just in manufacturing, but in services, so I am sure she will also welcome the words of the RBS Group chief economist Andrew McLaughlin, who only yesterday noted that
	"growth of Scottish private sector output remained robust and broad based across both manufacturing and service sectors in November."
	Those are welcome signs of continued and sustained economic growth not just in Ayrshire, but right across Scotland.

Douglas Alexander: I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend. I met the chairman of Shell in the UK last week and made it clear how inherently difficult it is to try and predict the oil price looking to the future. One need only look at the significant drop in the price of Brent crude in recent months to evidence the fact that it would be the height of irresponsibility to try and build an economic policy on as volatile a commodity as oil.

Douglas Alexander: The meeting that I had with Shell was the latest meeting that I have had with representatives of the oil interests in the United Kingdom. Of course we want to see a long-term productive future for the UK continental shelf, and for the North sea basin in particular. That is why, through the PILOT mechanism, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have been working week in, week out, month in, month out to ensure that there is a sustained engagement with our own Department and with the Department of Trade and Industry and with the Treasury. On that basis, I believe we can look forward with real optimism to the years ahead for the North sea.

Robert Syms: There is no doubt that studentification is a major and growing problem in towns such as Loughborough and in many cities in England. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at proposals, because the Housing Act 2004 did not say very much about that growing problem. A recent UK Universities report stated that the key is joint working, which I welcome, but I also hope that the Government examine proposals to strengthen the ability of housing authorities to protect local citizens. The offset to the growth of universities is that many local people find it difficult to get into the housing market.

James Duddridge: Last month, the Secretary of State told the House that action had been agreed on all but three of the 27 recommendations of the "Preventing Extremism Together" taskforce that were addressed to Government. As action being agreed is not the same as action being taken, can the Minister tell the House how many of the recommendations have so far been implemented?

William Hague: (Urgent question) To ask the Defence Secretary what the implications of recent events are for British policy towards Iraq.

Des Browne: I have always said that lasting progress in Iraq cannot be achieved by military means alone, but will depend on a combination of security, politics and economics. Our security strategy is clear and has not changed. It is not driven by the American political calendar, nor will it be thrown off course by those who use violence and terrorism to provoke sectarian reaction and to stop progress in Iraq.
	Our strategy has three main elements. First, we are helping the Iraqis to build up their own security forces—still with a long way to develop, but already with more than 300,000 recruited, trained and equipped. Secondly, as these forces develop we are handing them control, province by province, city by city, moving to the point where they have complete responsibility. Thirdly, we are underwriting that handover process by leaving in place quick-response forces not to do front-line security work, but ready to support the Iraqis if the situation gets out of control. We remain convinced that that remains the right strategy—indeed, the only one that could possibly work.
	I welcome the constructive approach of the Iraq Study Group. As I made clear yesterday, its assessment of the security situation is largely in tune with our own. We do recognise the gravity of that situation, but I also note the group's own conclusion that there is no magic formula to solve the problems. People should not confuse a difficult situation with a problem of strategy. Our strategy has long included many of the elements that the group has highlighted.
	What is changing is the pace at which this strategy unfolds. Prime Minister Maliki and his Government want it to go faster. That is a natural response and, indeed, a welcome sign of increasing confidence, but it also crystallises the great challenge that Maliki faces. On the one hand, to keep up momentum—to reinforce a sense of progress and nationhood—he must show that Iraq is regaining control of its own destiny. At the same time, he must not ask too much too quickly of its developing security forces.
	The Prime Minister made it clear during his visit to Washington last week that we have always been open to engagement with Iran and Syria, but it is absolutely vital that the basis for their engagement must be support for the democratically elected Government of Iraq, not support for sectarian or terrorist agendas. Those countries know what they have to do, and they must decide which path they want to follow.
	There are some parts of Iraq, especially Baghdad, where the reality on the ground clearly is a long way from the point where the coalition can hand over. This morning's suicide bombs were another reminder. Part of their motive, of course, is precisely to provoke an escalating sectarian reaction, but Baghdad is not Iraq, and I make no apology for reminding people that 14 of the 18 provinces are relatively peaceful. The security situation, and therefore progress along the security strategy, is different in each of these provinces.
	In the area under British lead in the south, two provinces have been handed over to the Iraqis, and a third is soon to follow. The fourth, Basra, remains the most difficult challenge, but again, the security situation is a symptom: the underlying cause is rival Shi'a power blocs vying for power. Right now, this is too much for the Iraqi security forces to deal with on their own, and there are real weaknesses in the local police, so unlike in the other three provinces, British forces are still doing front-line work in the main city.
	Operation Sinbad is working through Basra city area by area, re-establishing security, building confidence, rooting out corrupt and failing police, and putting Iraqi soldiers on street corners as a sign that the Government are determined to govern. Friday's Operation Pisa—an impressive operation involving a number of bold "strikes" across the north of Basra city—shows that when we need to act, we do so and we do so decisively. But of course, the key is that these improvements in security are followed, quickly, by progress in governance and by economic regeneration, building momentum and winning over local people to a positive view of the future.
	This is our strategy. We will continue to support the Iraqis in overcoming the violence and intimidation that disfigure their country. We will work with them to build a long-term relationship, including training and mentoring to help the security of both the country and the region, and to deal with the ongoing challenge of international terrorism. Both in security and in the parallel strands of politics and economic development we have to accept that how quickly things move will depend on many factors, not all of them directly under our control. In fact, it is a measure of success if the path of progress becomes increasingly an Iraqi one. As I said in a speech last month, we must get used to thinking in terms not just of our strategy but of our role in their strategy.
	We continue to insist that we will not cut and run. This is not about political gestures or a trial of wills, but about recognising the challenges we face and also the commitment we have made. We will hand over when it is right so to do, driven not by arbitrary deadlines but by the reality on the ground. I have made clear several times why we will not be drawn into laying out a prescriptive timetable for draw-down, and I note that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) supported that position yesterday. Our strategy will and must remain conditions-based. We will work to ensure that our plans remain clear and realistic, but we will also work to resist cynicism and defeatism as long as we still believe that we are making a difference—as long as we still believe that the presence of our forces is increasing the chance of a positive legacy for their work and their sacrifice in Iraq in the past three years.

William Hague: I thank the Defence Secretary for that response. While we accept much of what he said, will he accept that as the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as "grave and deteriorating" and as 7,000 British troops are deployed there, the Government should not hesitate to report to the House when major developments arise? Was not the publication last week of the Iraq Study Group's report one such event? As it was important enough for the Prime Minister to fly to Washington immediately, was it not also important enough to warrant a ministerial statement to Parliament in recent days?
	To seek to question the Government on that is in no way to lack sympathy with the difficulty of the choices they face, but will the Secretary of State say how the Government were thinking of gauging parliamentary reaction to that major reassessment of American and coalition strategy while the decisions on it were being made? We appreciate that talks between the United Kingdom and the United States are going on, but in that case can the Secretary of State tell us when the Government will be in a position to describe definitively the response of the coalition Governments to the Iraq Study Group?
	In the meantime, can the right hon. Gentleman give details about some matters about which it is not premature to ask, in the light of that report? For instance, did the Prime Minister reach an agreed view with the President in their talks on the ISG proposals last week? In particular, did he obtain a bankable assurance that the United States will now make a firm and sustained effort to revive the Israel-Palestinian peace process? Did the President agree to develop the "whole middle east strategy" of which the Prime Minister has spoken?
	In addition, in Washington, the Prime Minister described the ISG report as "a strong way forward" and said that
	"it is important now we concentrate on the elements that are necessary to make sure that we succeed".
	To which elements was he referring when he said that? What will be the objectives of the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit to the middle east? Can the Defence Secretary tell us what was the result of sending an envoy to Syria a few weeks ago, and have any parallel exploratory talks taken place with Iran?
	Is it not the case that the need for internal reconciliation in Iraq, the building up of the Iraqi army and the creation of an international support group—all proposed by the ISG—have already been proposed by many of us in the House? What has been the reaction of the Iraqi Government to the proposal to withdraw the bulk of American forces by early 2008? What assessment have the Government made of the reaction of the Iraqi Government to the report's conclusions? Do they agree that any international contact group formed must have Iraqi involvement throughout?
	Finally, on a defence matter, while those decisions are pending—as they clearly are—are contingency plans being made to provide for British forces to assist in the more rapid training of the Iraqi army called for by the ISG?
	Given the myriad questions that legitimately arise from the situation and the apparent imminence before Christmas of an announcement by the President of the United States on the reassessment going on there, will the Secretary of State and his colleagues ensure that the House receives a further full report from the Government before the Christmas recess, so that a full debate on Iraq—the lessons and the prospects—can be held early in the new year?

Des Browne: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, of course, be here tomorrow to answer questions at the Dispatch Box. It will be interesting to see just how many questions relate to this pressing issue. The complexity of the Iraq Study Group report will no doubt emerge in the questions that I will be asked. The report makes more than 79 recommendations.
	Many of the recommendations relating to the area in which we have particular security responsibility are entirely in line with the strategic approach that we have adopted for some years. The report recommends to the US Administration that there ought to be a change of policy, and the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) suggests that that means that it is recommending the same thing to the British Government. I have gone to some lengths, both here in the House and outside it, to set out our strategy and policy in Iraq. The hon. Gentleman thinks that policy changes need to be made because of the ISG report: I should be grateful if, in the questions that he puts to me as I stand at the Dispatch Box, he would outline what he thinks that they should be.
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk asked about a debate on this matter. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make an announcement about that on Thursday.

Mike Gapes: I also welcome today's opportunity to discuss this report, and add my voice to the call for a full debate in this House in the near future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to say that the situation in Iraq is difficult, but does he agree that it would be ridiculous of the British Government to change their policy just because a US study group has made certain recommendations? The US Government have not even given their response to those recommendations yet. In any case, surely it is this Government and this Parliament who should determine the policy of the British people in respect of Iraq? It should not be determined by people in any other country, however eminent they are.

Malcolm Rifkind: Baghdad may not be the whole of Iraq, but 25 per cent. of the population live there. In the other four provinces, 40 per cent. of the population are in the area of the highest insurgency. Will the Secretary of State accept that there is something improper and insensitive about the Prime Minister's enthusiasm to give evidence to an all-party congressional body appointed to make recommendations on the future of Iraq and his unwillingness to appoint any similar all-party group to advise the British Government or to seek any advice from outwith his own ranks on what is a disaster for British foreign policy?

Des Browne: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I respect his forensic analysis. I do not think that the two points that he makes are connected in the way that he says they are. He is correct to point out that 40 per cent. of the people of Iraq live in the areas of the worst violence. However, he also has to recognise that there is another part to that equation: 60 per cent. of the people of Iraq do not live in those areas. They enjoy substantially the freedoms that we have won for them and are released from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. That is a very important positive.
	So far as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's position is concerned, he stands at the Dispatch Box every week, and sometimes more frequently than that, and is able to be questioned by hon. Members. The fact that another Administration appointed a committee to advise them in relation to their policy does not necessarily mean that we have to do exactly the same thing, particularly when there is no evidence that our strategic approach or our policy in relation to Iraq—particularly the part that we have responsibility for—is failing.

John Hutton: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's proposals to make it easier for more people to save for their retirement.
	Despite the welcome fact that people are living longer, millions of employees are either not saving at all or not saving enough for their retirement. As the Pensions Commission noted in its second report, we must take steps now to tackle the problem of under-saving or face serious problems in the future. We have already acted to make sure that the state pension provides a solid platform on which people can save. The Pensions Bill published last month will create a simpler and more generous state pension. The restoration of the link to earnings will result in a basic state pension that by 2050 will be worth twice as much in real terms as it is today.
	More generous qualifying conditions will, for the first time, properly treat social contributions on an equal footing with cash contributions, delivering fairer outcomes, especially for women and carers. These and other changes will reduce the extent of means-testing in the future, making sure that pension credit continues to be targeted at the people who would otherwise have been poor in retirement or who have only small savings. But we must build on this foundation by giving more people greater incentives and opportunities to save for their retirement.
	Overall participation in occupational schemes has been falling since the late 1960s, and disproportionately high charges are making the personal pensions market uneconomical for those on moderate to low incomes, who often stop contributing to private schemes after a short time. We will therefore be bringing forward legislation to create new low-cost personal accounts as the catalyst for a new savings culture in our country.
	This White Paper sets out proposals to give every employee in Britain earning over £5,000 the statutory right for the first time to receive a contribution from their employer towards an occupational pension. Provided that they take responsibility in turn by contributing to their pension from their own wages, employees will be entitled to an employer contribution of 3 per cent. of their salary in a band between approximately £5,000 and £33,500. We will fix the level of employer contributions in primary legislation.
	From 2012, employers will automatically enrol their employees into personal accounts or into their own existing occupational pension scheme, as long at it meets the specified minimum standards. That simple but radical step will affect around 10 million employees in Britain, and it will be vital in overcoming the barriers that prevent many people from making the decision to save. There will be a compliance regime to protect the right of employees to be automatically enrolled and to receive an employer contribution. We will consult on the detail of this approach, but expect it to build on the light-touch model of the national minimum wage.
	We intend to establish personal accounts along the lines proposed by the Pensions Commission. The current Pensions Bill provides for the creation of a personal accounts delivery authority—an independent body with financial sector expertise that will, in the first instance, advise Government on the design of the operational structure of the accounts and prepare to get the necessary contractual arrangements with the private sector in place. It will then be responsible for commissioning the infrastructure to deliver the scheme from the private sector. The authority will eventually be replaced by a new personal accounts board, which will be responsible for the live running of the accounts. Its decisions will be independent of Government.
	Evidence suggests that moderate to low earners prefer not to make a choice of pension scheme administrator. Our approach will offer greater simplicity for savers and maximise participation levels. There will be a choice of funds for those who want it, which we expect to include the option of social, environmental and ethical investments and branded products. For those that do not want a choice, there will be a default fund.
	Low charges are critical to ensuring that people build up the maximum pension fund from their savings. The Government estimate that the long-term costs for personal accounts will be in line with those set out by the Pensions Commission of around 0.3 per cent. of funds under management, or even lower. Together with reduced marketing costs, this approach is expected to be 20 to 25 per cent. cheaper than a system based on direct competition between firms for individuals.
	These reforms are designed to fill a gap in the existing market, and we want them to complement the existing market, not compete with it. So, alongside the creation of the new personal accounts, we will take action to support existing pension provision. There will be no transfers into or out of personal accounts from or to existing pension schemes, and an annual limit will restrict the level of contributions an individual can put into their account. The limit will be £10,000 in the first year, to allow individuals currently without access to a good-quality occupational pension to save in other non-pension products before 2012 and then to move them to personal accounts. We propose a limit of £5,000 for subsequent years, but we will consult on that.
	There will be a simple and self-certifying exemption test for employers who operate schemes of broadly equal value to personal accounts. Additionally, we are consulting on whether companies that offer higher value schemes should be allowed to have a reasonable waiting period before employees join the schemes. We are also interested to learn more about the National Association of Pension Funds' proposal of a "good pensions scheme" quality mark to help employees identify companies that offer such pensions.
	The Government are committed to minimising the burden of personal accounts on employers. Mandatory employer contributions will be phased in over at least three years. The reforms have to be simple to run for a small employer. The central clearing house will mean that employers need only have one point of contact for transferring contributions, and the Government will make minimising the administrative burden on employers a key task for the delivery authority and subsequent personal accounts board.
	The vast majority of people can expect to benefit in retirement from saving in personal accounts or an equivalent scheme. Of course, all forms of saving have some uncertainty, but thanks to our reforms those who work or care throughout their working lives can expect to be better off from having saved. Indeed, now someone need only work or care for 24 years to avoid pound-for-pound withdrawal; and under existing rules, even the tiny minority of pensioners who receive the guarantee credit only could still see a return from their saving by taking a lump sum.
	Simple, low-cost, flexible and portable as people move between jobs, personal accounts may generate an additional £4 billion to £5 billion of net new saving each year, equivalent to around half a percentage point of gross domestic product. They will help millions of people take greater responsibility for building their retirement savings and embed a new pensions savings culture at the heart of a comprehensive and balanced pensions settlement.
	I hope that these reforms set a sustainable and sensible course. They are in the long-term interests not only of this generation but of generations to come. I commend the White Paper to the House.

John Hutton: I welcome what I believe to be the overall support that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) continues to signal for the proposals. A consensus behind them here and elsewhere is important because a sense that politicians say one thing here and another outside would undermine public confidence. I was therefore worried to read what the hon. Gentleman wrote in the  Financial Times about the proposals somehow being an attempt to nationalise Britain's pensions savings industry. What a load of nonsense that criticism was.

John Hutton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the work that he and his Select Committee have done. They have been strong supporters of our approach.
	Two things will make it possible for any Minister at the Dispatch Box to say with confidence in the future that the vast majority of people will gain from the new personal accounts system. One is the employer contribution, and the other is the low charges that will be associated with it. As I have said today, we believe that in the long term it will be possible to get down to 30 basis points for the delivery of personal accounts. It will, however, be the job and responsibility of first the delivery authority and then the personal accounts board to negotiate with pension providers and the industry to establish the right basis on which charges will be handled in the scheme. We are consulting on that, but let me repeat what we said when we responded to my right hon. Friend's report, and what I have said today. We believe that this system can be run within the funding band that Turner set out, and if we can achieve that it will be a huge boost to the pension incomes of many middle and low earners in this country.

Mark Lazarowicz: I welcome the fact that the White Paper is aiming for the simplest scheme possible. In that connection, what is my right hon. Friend's thinking on the choice of funds to be made available? Does he agree that although it is obviously important to have a choice of funds, it has to relatively limited, else some of the benefits of simplicity will disappear from the scheme? What is his concept of, and thinking on, the range of risks available and the various options open when funds are selected by individual account holders?

John Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend, but our research indicates that as many as one in five potential scheme members joining personal accounts have expressed a preference for some form of choice, and it is important that the scheme offers them that. However, such choice must not compromise the scheme's simplicity, as he rightly emphasised, or—as I have been trying to stress today—the benefits of a low-cost system. The default fund that I mentioned will have an element of life-styling, so the risk will be spread for those who are in it. Alongside that, we envisage a number of bulk-bought funds that might, for example, cover low, medium and high risk for people who want to exercise such a choice, and some branded products. But the precise menu available to those who join personal accounts obviously needs to be worked out in detail between now and 2012 by the personal accounts delivery authority and, eventually, the personal accounts board. As I said, it is right and proper that the board be independent of Ministers, so that it can take the right decisions in the best interests of scheme members.

Yvette Cooper: I hope the hon. Gentleman will, therefore, confirm that the Conservatives did not ask the people of London. He seems to be defending his party's decision to abolish the GLC and to deny our capital city a proper voice not just across Britain, but also across the world, for 14 long years. If manifesto commitments are the most important thing for him, I hope he will support us in executing our manifesto commitment to give London a stronger voice and stronger powers devolved from the Government.
	Six years on, the strong mayoral model is working for London. The GLA has been a success story for London and for Londoners. The congestion charge has reduced congestion in London by more than 20 per cent. even at a time when car use has been increasing across the country. The charge has generated extra income to improve public transport across the capital. The number of people using buses has gone up by a third, thanks to improved investment and the service improvements that are part of a multi-billion pound programme of public transport investment in the capital. Police numbers have increased substantially and crime has fallen.
	London has a strong voice, not just in this country but throughout the world. That is one of the reasons why we won the bid for the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics, something of which the whole nation can be proud.
	London First, representing 300 of the capital's major businesses, has hailed those reforms as a success. The organisation now supports greater devolution to the Mayor and the strong strategic leadership set out in the Bill.
	Significant challenges face the city as a whole, which justify further reforms and will require stronger leadership in future. The capital faces serious pressures on housing, for example; by 2026, there may be more than 1 million more Londoners to accommodate in sustainable communities in the capital. It is vital for London that badly needed new homes are built and that the London plan is delivered. We need planning improvements to support business development and delivery for the sake of the London economy, too. That is why London First supports the measures.
	More needs to be done to tackle problems such as health inequalities.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that, later this week, we are publishing a planning policy statement around climate change. We are also publishing a revised code for sustainable homes, which takes particular account of the need to improve water efficiency right across the country. The planning system already takes account of the need to plan for water use, which is also included as part of the London plan, which the Mayor obviously leads. We believe that the Mayor already plays an important role, but that he needs further powers, particularly in relation to climate change, given that the issue is important not just for London, but for the whole country and across the world.
	We believe that the proposed reforms are needed to help Londoners get things done and to respond to the serious challenges facing the capital, but they are also about devolution—handing power from central Government to London on a series of issues. The Greater London Authority Bill and the local government and public involvement in health Bill aim to devolve power to London boroughs as well as to the Mayor to do a better job for London.
	I have to say that Conservative Members have adopted a shameful approach to the debate about giving powers to London— [Interruption.] They opposed the introduction of the Mayor; they opposed the Greater London authority; they opposed the congestion charge; they opposed the Mayor's environmental measures; and now I gather that the Conservatives on the GLA have even said that they want to abolish free bus travel for children. They have gone from snatching the milk from children to snatching their bus tickets instead—still the same old Tories.  [Interruption.] They are opposing this new Bill— [Interruption.]

Yvette Cooper: Does that mean that he will take away children's tickets? It sounded like it.
	The Conservatives oppose this new Bill to strengthen the Mayor's position. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) wrote in the  Evening Standard that the Conservatives will oppose the current Bill. He said that they would like to see the mayor focus on the big job that he already has. However, only a month ago, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) wrote in their pamphlet on the permissive state that:
	"a great world city like London needs a city government. We are today committed not only to keeping the Mayoralty but to enhancing the powers of the office."
	A classic Tory flip-flop—one minute they want to enhance the Mayor's powers: the next they want the Mayor to stick to the job he already has. One minute they want to strengthen London government: the next they want to vote against the very Bill that will do exactly that.
	We believe that the Bill will be good for London and we hope that we can build a consensus across the capital and the country to support it.

Yvette Cooper: I shall be happy to take further interventions, but first would like to set out the Government's proposals on these matters.
	The Government have responded to the representations that have been made and, given the growing consensus between London councils, London First and the Mayor about how the powers should operate, have decided to make further amendments to the process. In particular, we now agree that it would be better for matters to be referred to the Mayor at a later stage. The boroughs would therefore have the initial lead on major developments too, with the Mayor able to intervene only on major strategic applications that go to the heart of the London plan.
	In the secondary legislation to which I referred a moment ago, we will set thresholds as well as the policy test. We do not think that the Mayor should take over applications at the beginning of the process, as proposed in the arrangement that we initially set out for consultation. We agree with London First, London councils and the Mayor that it would be better for boroughs to make their decisions on an application before the Mayor decides whether the policy test is met and whether he wants to intervene. We believe that that will provide a better parallel to the Mayor's current powers and give the boroughs the clear central role in dealing with a planning application and its impact on a local area. In addition, the approach that I have set out would limit the Mayor's intervention to those cases where strategic issues are at stake.
	We also believe that, when a decision is taken about using the mayoral powers, account should be taken of the boroughs' wider ability to deliver against the London plan and of their record in doing so.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that the reality is that we need additional homes. We are currently not delivering on the London plan. The homes that are needed, as set out in the London plan, to which people have agreed, are currently not being built, so we have to recognise that there is a need to increase housing and the responsiveness of the planning system across the capital. I have taken a range of interventions on the subject, and I have set out further details on the Government's approach and the further safeguards that we think are appropriate. We will set out more details in secondary legislation, and there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss the matter in detail in Committee.
	Finally, I shall highlight a couple of other issues covered by the Bill, including the environmental role for the Mayor. The Bill strengthens London's ability to manage its waste sustainably without changing existing structures. It also places a duty on the Mayor and the London assembly to address climate change, and that is particularly important. Clearly, the Mayor is already taking action on climate change, but it is important that it has a stronger focus, important to consider measures to prevent and reduce carbon emissions, and to adapt to the challenge that climate change poses to London. We hope that the Bill's provisions will help to establish London as an important model of carbon management for other major world cities.

Jacqui Lait: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the Assembly's powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 in holding the Mayor to account. However, I do not think that any Labour Member would be prepared to give up his or her seat in order to welcome him back among the ranks of the parliamentary Labour party.
	In 2002, the Assembly's own planning advisory committee said:
	"If the Mayor refuses to go public of his own accord, we may have no option but to call upon the government to amend the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to require him to hold his planning decision meetings in public."
	I understand that the Mayor has indicated that he might be prepared to consider holding his meetings in public. [Hon. Members: "Where?"] My hon. Friends may well ask. We would all like to know where and when the Mayor plans to hold his planning meetings in public, but if he continues to make those decisions behind closed doors, at the behest of advisers— however professional and skilled—and does not allow objections to be heard in open forum, only my learned friends will be the gainers. The Mayor would be judge and jury and his decisions would not be open to challenge. Surely the Minister can convince us that the statutory instrument will cover that. If it does not, that affords another opportunity for evidence-taking sessions to discuss the matter with the interested parties.
	Delays are endemic in planning, and the Mayor's current powers build in delay. A few days ago, the Barker review suggested methods—with which we may or may not agree—of speeding up planning decisions. It is unfortunate that Kate Barker did not consider the current position in London or the new proposals. The Government's target is that 60 per cent. of major planning applications should be decided in 13 weeks. The Minister said that there could be changes to the terms of the statutory instrument, which might reduce the delay.
	Will the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is to reply to the debate, confirm that the Mayor can no longer intervene just as a committee is about to meet to determine a planning application but after borough officers have recommended refusal? Will he also confirm that, if the Mayor wants to force changes to a proposed planning obligation, he can no longer take over a relevant planning application after the borough has granted planning permission but while the obligation is being negotiated? That matter is also fertile for evidence taking.
	The two new powers on housing and planning remove powers from local communities and their elected representatives—those who know their areas and what the people want and need. Any London Member of Parliament knows that we already face a revolt over the Government-imposed targets for housing. The Government imply that they apply only to the leafy suburbs, but inner-city councillors or residents associations tell the same story. They know what their local people want and need because they live among them. By and large, they are not re-elected unless they deliver.
	A recent opinion poll for London councils found that 54 per cent. of London residents oppose the Mayor's having more planning powers, in contradiction to the opinion poll that the Mayor commissioned. He has the right to ask the questions, but the London councils' opinion poll, which represents all the London boroughs, found that 54 per cent. of London residents opposed the Mayor's having more planning powers and 75 per cent. believed that local councils should have them.
	I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill tonight on the basis of the provisions for housing and planning alone, because they constitute a naked grab of power away from locally elected authorities. Clearly, the Government do not believe in their rhetoric of devolution to local level. However, we do not object only to the powers on those two matters.
	Some themes that run through the Bill and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 are inconsistent and need rationalising. The Mayor is obliged to produce a plethora of strategies, apart from those that he has devised off his own bat, and the Bill imposes more. I shall not weary the House with the detail, but boroughs are required to "have regard to" some, be "in conformity with" others and "in general conformity with" yet others.
	The Mayor and the boroughs should work together in partnership. We believe that the boroughs are the genuine voice of local communities, and that they should be—and are—responsible to those communities for the policies that they implement. They should not be the resentful and unwilling processors of mayoral policies, with which they and their residents disagree. We will, therefore, try to amend the Bill so that the boroughs must "have regard to" the Mayor's strategies. That will ensure that whoever is Mayor takes the London boroughs with him on his strategies, and that borough councillors feel that they own the ideas. Acceptance in local communities will be easier and the resentment that is building about centrally imposed plans and strategies will be reduced.
	A second theme that runs through the Bill and the original Act is the lack of coherent thought given to appointments to the various bodies for which the Mayor is responsible—or perhaps the appointments system reflects whatever paranoia either the Mayor or the Government suffered at the time. I hope that hon. Members will excuse me if I run through some of the variety of appointments.
	The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority is one of the least criticised of the functional bodies. It was put severely to the test on 7/7, when we were all exceedingly proud of the men and women on the front line, who put their lives at risk to deal with the crisis that engulfed our city that day. Of course, mistakes were made and lessons were learned. However, it is relevant to note that the membership of the board currently includes eight representatives from the boroughs. The Bill takes two borough representatives away to give the places to the Mayor to represent "other interests"—perhaps friends of Ken—but the saving grace are the many borough representatives, which ensures that decisions made by LFEPA are owned by the boroughs.
	Let us consider Transport for London—the least responsive and most arrogant of all the functional bodies. Its board membership currently includes one elected politician—the Mayor. Lord Toby Harris—a friend of Ken—is a member. I hesitate to describe the rest of the board as "friends of Ken", but it does not contain a single representative of the London boroughs. The Bill removes the current ban on political representatives on the board, for which I offer much thanks, but it would allow the Mayor to appoint an assembly member or a member of a London borough—doubtless a friend of Ken—and the Transport for London board will not be any more responsive to the travelling public across the capital. I, for one, would still have no confidence that Transport for London would care a jot more about my constituents than it does now, when it is about as responsive as a slug.

Jacqui Lait: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice already. His interventions were pointless then, and this one would be pointless too.
	We believe that Londoners should be represented on all the functional bodies by representatives from the boroughs, and we shall table amendments to that effect. I will now return to specific sections of the Bill.
	Waste disposal is by far the most difficult aspect of the Bill for the Government to deal with. The Mayor wants a single waste disposal authority for London, and is so determined to get it that he is spending some £80,000 of London taxpayer's money to hire parliamentary lobbyists and agents to get the Government to cave in. I freely admit, however, that the issue is not easy for the Government to resolve. In north London, as we heard from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), waste disposal arrangements are not working, while in south London they are. London councils believe that the Government's proposed waste and recycling forum should be set up as soon as possible and be a partnership between the boroughs and the Mayor, with at least 50 per cent. borough membership. The Government have missed a trick, however, by not including water as well as waste disposal in the proposal. The disagreements over the issue should be aired at evidence-taking sessions by the Bill Committee to reach a balanced conclusion and amend the Bill if necessary.
	We are rather puzzled by the handover to the Mayor of responsibility for public health. Clearly, the Government feel in something of a quandary, as the Bill envisages that as a double-hatted appointment for the current regional director of public health. Undoubtedly, it will be great fun for the Mayor to devise a health inequalities policy for London, but what will happen if his ideas are in direct contravention of the director's? Who will have the final say? Who will have control of the money to put any strategy into practice? What will be the involvement of the primary care trusts, as they, along with the hospitals, will have to act on vaccination campaigns, for instance? This matter should be another candidate for evidence-giving to allow the Committee to tease out exactly what power and responsibility the Mayor would have.
	There are a number of proposals about the Assembly itself that are more about process, which will doubtless be of great interest to the Committee, but I would just like to draw the House's attention to concerns that the head of paid service will take over responsibility for hiring some staff. We do not see the need for that change. We know that the City of London still has concerns and will be seeking reassurances about the City of London museum, a national museum of which I am particularly fond and which has done a magnificent job of uncovering and displaying some of London's real treasures. I am sure that the Committee will be interested in ensuring that those concerns are explored and met.
	As the Minister said, the Government have devolved to the Mayor two further strategies: on climate change mitigation and energy; and on adaptation to climate change. In both, the Secretary of State retains some limited powers of direction, but again, the only involvement of the London boroughs is by consultation. The boroughs will almost certainly have to implement some of the strategies. Why do the boroughs have no real involvement? That is not devolution of power; it leaves the most responsive level of local government in London helpless.
	Then there is the dog that did not bark. Why is the Government office for London not being disbanded? It spends huge sums of money in London. It has increased its staff since the office of the London Mayor was established. It has parallel responsibility with the Mayor over some functions. Why is that the case? Why are the Government not doing away with it?
	We are faced with a Bill to amend the powers of the Mayor and Greater London Authority that is incoherent and inconsistent. Simple matters that should be in the Bill have been left out. The Bill does not simplify where it could do so. The rights of Londoners to be properly represented on pan-London bodies have been ignored. By transferring some powers to the Mayor from the Government, the Bill has achieved a huge power grab away from the London boroughs.
	I am left with the suspicion that the Bill is the price that the Government had to pay to get Ken Livingstone back into the Labour fold before the last mayoral election. However, the proposals do not even satisfy him. They satisfy no one. Furthermore, we cannot use the new powers of the Public Bill Committee to examine whether the proposals are correct. I will invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill tonight, because London and Londoners deserve better.

Nick Raynsford: Almost 10 years ago, I was given the considerable honour and responsibility of developing detailed proposals for the restoration of city-wide government in London, and of subsequently guiding the legislation through the House and overseeing its implementation. At the time, I was surprised at the confused and incoherent stance of the Conservative party on the issue. Of course, it could be excused its state at that time. It had suffered a massive election defeat and was shell-shocked by the total repudiation of its position on London and the clear support of Londoners, which was reinforced in a referendum a year later in every London borough, for the restoration of a city-wide authority on the new basis.
	I am surprised that 10 years later, the Conservative party still seems confused and incoherent. It has made so little progress. When addressing the questions of how London should be governed, what the powers of the Mayor should be, and how the Mayor, assembly, boroughs and other structures in London should work together, it appears to be incapable of rising above the level of what even the most charitable observer would describe as the nit-picking and visionless. At least it could claim, 10 years ago, that the GLA model was new: it was innovative and untested, and so I suppose that it could reserve judgment. Now, however, the GLA has been in existence for six years, and there is widespread agreement among informed commentators throughout London—including the business community, academics, people who care about London government and the public—that it has been an improvement.
	A proper city-wide framework of government has been introduced, which London lacked between 1986 and 2000, and which London is very much the better for having had restored: witness our success in securing the Olympics, which would never have happened without a democratic city-wide authority, as anyone who understands how the International Olympic Committee takes decisions will verify.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there are too many reserve powers for the Secretary of State in respect of housing, and that the Mayor should have more totally devolved powers to ensure that London's social housing needs can be met?

Nick Raynsford: No, I do not agree with that. I believe that there is a balance between the powers that should be exercised at local level, the powers that should be exercised at regional level and the powers that should be exercised at national level. Getting that balance right is always difficult and there will always be tensions, but it is important that there should be a national overview of housing policy and measures to ensure that there is adequate provision in areas where otherwise there would probably be none, because of the resistance of some sections of the population and some political parties. The Government must be able to insist that housing needs are met. I do not agree with removing the reserved powers, but I am strongly in favour of giving the Mayor a much stronger role.
	In the context of the skills and training agenda, I think it right for there to be more integration between the GLA's role in economic development and the hugely important challenges for training. I therefore support the measures in the parallel Further Education and Training Bill. As for health, there is obvious merit in designating the regional director for public health as the Mayor's adviser, and giving the Mayor an explicit remit to tackle health inequalities.
	When it comes to planning, I think—as I said earlier in an intervention—that there is a real difficulty of definition. I support the case for enabling the Mayor to ensure greater compliance with the London plan throughout Greater London. That includes both a stronger say in whether borough development plans conform with the London plan and, in limited circumstances, giving the Mayor power to direct approval of a development proposal of strategic importance which clearly conforms with the London plan.
	I know that some people are concerned about the implications of giving the Mayor power to direct approval, rather than just the current power to say no. Their argument hinges on the slightly suspect assumption that planning powers to refuse are acceptable because they are accompanied by a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, while powers to accept—which are not subject to such an appeal—should not be granted. In my view, it is right to permit the Mayor both to direct an acceptance and to direct a refusal, if there is clear evidence that the particular development application is clearly of strategic significance, and clearly not in or not in conformity with the London plan. The definition must be drawn very carefully, however, to avoid the risk of mission creep, which I mentioned in an early intervention, and also the risk of conflict between the Mayor's economic development objectives and financial interests, as well as planning interests. It is a question of propriety, and also of ensuring that decisions are made in a transparent way.
	I am satisfied that the Government intend to achieve that, but it is a difficult definitional issue. I think we will all want to see the detailed proposals, in the form of a statutory instrument, before exercising a final judgment on whether the balance is right.

Nick Raynsford: I support the hon. Gentleman's concern about transparency—I was about to come to that—but I do not accept his view that there is something curious about there being a single-person planning authority. It is implicit in the structure of the Greater London authority that the Mayor is directly elected by the people of London and that he is the person responsible for the London plan. That defines the planning objectives for London, and it would be very odd indeed if it is said that the person elected by the people of London to do that were not able to discharge that role. Therefore, I think that there is a logical inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's position, although I agree that the Mayor must be seen to be acting transparently, and that becomes all the more important as we are now talking about his having the power to direct acceptance in certain cases, as well as the power to direct refusal.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend is taking me into different territory, which is a matter of planning policy generally. I have in the past looked into this matter in considerable detail and I do not agree with the third-party right of appeal concept, which I think would be a disaster in respect of planning decisions. It would clog up a system that is already proving difficult in some respects for developers to find their way through. I cannot be tempted down that particular byway.
	I shall now turn from the powers to the way in which the GLA operates. The Government have come up with broadly the correct package of changes to improve the way that the GLA works without unbalancing the arrangements between the Mayor and the assembly, which were very carefully crafted when the structure was put in place. Under that architecture, the Mayor is clearly, unequivocally, in the driving seat, with executive powers, while the role of the assembly is to scrutinise, to hold the Mayor to account and to test whether the Mayor's strategies are as effective and robust as they need to be to meet London's needs.
	The proposed changes do not seek to alter that, despite the pressures applied from some quarters to extend greater executive powers to the assembly. That would be confusing, and inconsistent with the "strong mayor" model that is at the heart of the GLA system of governance. The proposed changes respect the overall structure, but refine the way in which it operates, and they are generally sensible, modest and incremental reforms. The Mayor will rightly be required to have regard to the assembly's views before finalising his strategies, and he will be obliged to give reasons when rejecting assembly proposals.
	On staffing matters, the assembly will be empowered to hold confirmation hearings for a limited number of senior posts, but it will not be able to veto appointments. In both of those respects, the assembly's scrutiny role is being strengthened without undermining the Mayor's executive powers. The head of paid service will take over responsibility for appointments, in line with normal public service patterns. However, in its representations the assembly makes a valid point when questioning whether that power should extend to changes in the overall establishment without such changes being subject to scrutiny. That question should be considered in Committee.
	On the budget, the Bill sensibly proposes a split to identify separately the proportion of the budget attributable to the assembly, as against the proportion necessary to meet the Mayor's requirements. The current proposals incorporate a rather complex formula to cap any increase in the budget attributable to the assembly, without any comparable mechanism to establish a floor below which the assembly's budget cannot be reduced. The assembly perfectly reasonably thinks that that is unfair and one-sided. I understand that it believes that the current Mayor has been generous in providing for the assembly's needs and it does not doubt that he will continue to be so, but it fears that under a different regime that might not be the case. It also argues that if it is necessary to provide safeguards against unreasonable increases in the level of the assembly budget, comparable safeguards should apply to ensure that no future Mayor could vengefully reduce the assembly's resources to prevent effective scrutiny.
	With those reservations, I am happy to confirm my strong support for the proposals in the Bill, which will help the GLA continue to develop successfully and provide the effective city-wide leadership that our capital needs and deserves. I look forward to the Bill being enacted.

Andrew Dismore: When we were in the by-ways of Westminster, I was taken back to my days as leader of the Labour group on Westminster council, when the district auditor uncovered the fact that the council's policy, under Lady Porter, was to be
	"mean and nasty to the homeless".

Andrew Slaughter: To respond to the hon. Gentleman's second point, it all depends on how the question is put, although I am sure that Conservative-controlled London Councils—or whatever it is called now—asked it in an impartial manner. I have seen the wording of the questions in the GLA survey, which seemed absolutely clear. The survey revealed that Londoners supported the extension of planning powers. They see the terrible mess that Tory councils are making of planning in London.
	The hon. Gentleman was treading on thinner ice when he mentioned the decent homes programme. I am sure that Westminster council is giving the Government full credit for supplying all the funds for the programme and that it is explaining why in the previous 20 years it could do nothing to renew and improve its housing stock. I remind him that the Tory housing spokesman in his borough said of the decent homes programme:
	"It saddled us with £192 million worth of debt."
	In other words, there is a Tory council that does not want its council housing stock improved.
	The reason we need greater emphasis on affordable housing and the planning powers that will deliver it in London is twofold, the first of which is simple humanitarian grounds. I do not intend to detain the House today, but in the hot air and statistics that are sometimes generated, we often lose sight of real human misery. We can argue about the politics of it one way or another, but the housing crisis in London is a consequence of the overheating of the London housing market, making both rented and for-sale, market housing simply unaffordable—and not just to people on low incomes, but to people on several times as much. Many people are living in temporary and often overcrowded accommodation. Surely all London Members, and particularly inner-London Members, encounter that problem every week in their surgeries.
	In the 20 or more years during which I have had to deal with these matters, I cannot remember so many people coming to my surgeries, telling me that they have five children and are living in a one-bedroom flat. They are now being told by the local authority that it is statutory overcrowding because the fifth child has reached one year of age, so they can move up one band in the choice-based letting scheme. That makes a bit of a mockery of the idea of choice-based lettings. Equally, people are living in temporary accommodation for several years—a better quality of accommodation on the whole and certainly in comparison with the bed-and-breakfast accommodation that the Tory Government subjected people to, but it is not really suitable as a home. It can be former bed-sit accommodation, which people cannot settle into and which has, scandalously, been rented in my constituency for £300 or £400 a week for a one or two-bedroom flat. That makes a mockery of the housing market, producing not only human misery, but profiteering. That must be dealt with.

Kate Hoey: When I hear the word Genesis, it immediately makes me want to jump up. Is my hon. Friend aware that that same housing association is the body that bought the Church Commissioners' property through some sort of multi-deal and is now trying to sell as many off as possible, despite the fact that those homes were intended for people on lower incomes? Some of these housing associations get away with a lot of things, simply because they are a housing association, but in many cases they are not much better than some private developers.

Justine Greening: Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned the economic impact of immigration. He might be interested in the evidence presented to the Work and Pensions Committee yesterday by Professor Paul Gregg, an economic adviser to the Chancellor, who said that the impact of immigration on housing was not yet clear. Apparently, one of the challenges arising from the expanding work force is that the economy will have to grow at around 3 per cent. if we to be able to continue to provide those employment opportunities. That in turn will arouse severe inflationary pressures that the Bank of England will have to consider—

Andrew Dismore: I welcome this Bill, and the fact that it will extend the powers of the Mayor in important areas. I also welcome the fact that, for once, we are able to have a debate on London. Ever since the annual debate on policing was abolished, we have been unable to debate London fully in the way that we are doing tonight. I hope that the Government will consider allowing the House to have an annual Adjournment debate on London issues. That would be welcomed by most hon. Members present today.
	Labour's creation of the London Mayor and assembly in 2000 corrected the democratic deficit inflicted by the Conservative Government when they abolished the Greater London council in 1986. Since the restoration of city-wide government six years ago, Londoners have seen real and significant improvements to many aspects of life in the capital. The Audit Commission's report on the GLA for last year said:
	"Crime is at a five-year low, and local policing is now a reality in every ward in London. Investment in public transport is at its highest for sixty years."
	Uniquely among major cities across the world, London has seen a shift from private cars to public transport, assisted by investment and the introduction of the congestion charge. From 2008, the low-emission zone for London will cut pollution from road transport and improve air quality. The Mayor has been rightly praised for his strategies on climate change and affordable housing. The International Olympic Committee would not have awarded the 2012 Olympics to London without a city-wide government to oversee that great commitment.
	The system of devolved government for London in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 has, on the whole, worked pretty well. It has enabled a strong executive Mayor to develop and implement strategies across a range of important policy areas. Some have suggested that the assembly's inability to block mayoral policies represents a weakness, but a shared electorate does not mean a shared mandate. The Mayor is elected with an executive mandate, while the assembly is elected to scrutinise, and those roles should not be confused.
	For example, if the bar for assembly amendments to the Mayor's budget were to be lowered below the current two-thirds majority, London government could become gridlocked, with the GLA unable to set a legal budget. London government has been able to deliver, precisely because that sort of impasse is not possible.
	According to the pamphlet jointly authored by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) last month, the Conservative Party is now
	"committed to not only keeping the Mayoralty, but also to enhancing the powers of the office".
	We might have thought, therefore, that tonight we would see the Opposition give their wholehearted support to the Bill and the proposed new powers. As usual, however, their position, especially in respect of planning, seems to be rather confused, opportunist, and downright misleading.
	The case for giving the Mayor power to grant planning permission in a small, limited number of strategic cases must be obvious. At present, the Mayor has the power only to refuse schemes. That negative and lopsided power severely limits his negotiating position with both boroughs and developers, and hampers the delivery of needed housing, especially affordable housing and housing for rent, as we have discussed already.
	In fact, over the past six years, the Mayor has directed refusal in fewer than 20 of the cases referred to him. Personally, I should have liked him to do so more often—including in my own patch, where very poor council estate regeneration schemes proposed by Tory Barnet council are going ahead. Generally, I believe that a negotiated solution has been achieved. I cannot see the Mayor using a new power to approve an application any more frequently than so far he has used the power to refuse. I agree with the comments about the need to define "strategic" clearly, but the Mayor has shown that he has behaved responsibly in the past and there is no reason to suggest that he would do otherwise in the future.
	We have heard that the Liberal Democrats oppose the extension of the Mayor's powers. Perhaps that is because of their own record and the way in which they have run authorities under their control. For example, the sort of case where the Mayor would have intervened to give approval was the St. Georges wharf scheme in then Liberal-Democrat-controlled Lambeth. The planning application was for hundreds of residential units, 40 per cent. of which were to be affordable, rising to 50 per cent. if funding from the Housing Corporation was made available. The scheme was supported by the Mayor and recommended for approval by Lambeth officers, but the Liberal Democrat council refused planning permission on the grounds that there was previous consent for a hotel.
	After a public inquiry, the inspector granted permission, saying that there was a
	"strong planning imperative to maximise housing provision".
	The inspector continued:
	"The London borough of Lambeth case, which comprised no more than a series of assertions of opinion...for the...hotel scheme"
	was
	"put forward without reasoned consideration"
	and
	"members not only placed their officer in an invidious position but conduced themselves in an unreasonable manner".
	That resulted in an award of costs against the council. That is an example of the Liberal Democrats' grotesque waste of public money and officers' time and of an unacceptable delay in the delivery of desperately needed housing for London.

Andrew Dismore: The point that I make is made by my hon. Friend. The fact remains that the scheme was going to provide hundreds of homes in Lambeth. Homes are more important than a hotel. That is a strategic decision and an example of where the Mayor perhaps ought to have intervened. It illustrates the necessity of the positive planning powers that are proposed to enable the Mayor to implement the London plan. The unreasonable misuse of the local planning system to stymie developments of London-wide significance cannot be acceptable, particularly for the 60,000 Londoners who remain homeless. Over the last six years, the Mayor has proved that he is judicious in the use of his existing powers. The Bill will ensure that he becomes involved only in genuinely strategic issues for the benefit of London and Londoners.
	I have to disagree with the Government over one area in the Bill: waste disposal. The Bill falls well short of the necessary steps to address that London-wide problem. The Government's proposals do not deal with the fundamental challenge of the integrated and sustainable waste management that we need. The argument between a city-wide and a borough approach is not new. Twenty years ago, the Greater London council was responsible for co-ordinating and managing the disposal of London's municipal waste. Since its abolition, London has fallen well behind many international comparator cities.
	There are a surprising number of similarities between the problems that we now face in London and those confronting Londoners before the GLC. Much of the reasoning for a single London waste authority then remains relevant today. The 1960 Herbert commission, which led to the establishment of the GLC, concluded that the local authorities were
	"carrying out their responsibilities for refuse disposal as efficiently as their present situation will allow,"
	but added:
	"the conditions which would make for full effectiveness do not exist".
	That is as true today as it was more than 40 years ago.
	The GLC's innovative approach turned the capital's waste management service into a world leader. Within five years, the Edmonton solid waste incinerator had been planned, designed and built. Pioneering rail and river transfer stations were developed. The GLC embarked on a comprehensive plan to upgrade London's waste management arrangements, many of which still reflected their Victorian origins. The GLC's department of public health engineering was a centre of excellence in the planning and delivery of high quality waste management infrastructure and services. That was all ended by the Conservative Government's abolition of the GLC.
	London's municipal waste management arrangements reflect the stagnation of the post-GLC 1985 contractual arrangements. Of the 33 London boroughs, 12 are unitary waste collection and disposal authorities. The other 21 are arranged into four joint authorities. That means that there are a total of no fewer than 16 waste disposal authorities, none of which is charged to act in London's wider interests as a capital city. Although some boroughs perform well, others do not. Collectively, they fall well short of delivering what London needs.
	In the last decade, London has slipped from being the fourth best region at recycling household waste to being the worst, failing to achieve the national recycling target of 25 per cent. in 2005. Twenty-nine of London's waste authorities failed to achieve their statutory household recycling targets in 2003-04. There have been only 25 planning applications for waste management sites in London over the past five years: an average of only 0.15 per year per authority. London currently incinerates just under 20 per cent. of its waste. Despite the strongest regional policy supporting recycling and new technologies, that is set to rise to about 40 per cent. with current incineration plans. London would then account for almost half of England's share of incineration. As London boroughs have not prioritised waste planning and management, they are highly likely not to meet the requirements of the landfill directive, risking Government fines. The GLA estimates London's landfill allowance trading scheme liability to be £1.7 billion from 2005 to 2020.
	The Corporation of London runs the London hazardous waste collection service on behalf of the boroughs. That service consists of only two vehicles for the whole of London—one collecting chemicals, the other asbestos. From the 3 million homes in London in 2005, that service collected only 10 tonnes of asbestos and 1 tonne of chemicals a month—a fraction of the estimated total. Hazardous materials in black bags inevitably end up in landfills outside London or being burned in incinerators, resulting in pollution.
	It is hard to see how the cautious package of measures in the Bill addresses those serious problems. The proposed requirement for boroughs to be in "general conformity" with the Mayor's strategy will end in court disputes between the Mayor and the boroughs. The Mayor is not permitted to be proactive in bringing forward and implementing city-wide plans for recycling, tackling climate change, minimising transport movements and realising efficiency savings. No other global city has such fragmented and divisive arrangements. Although the Mayor may write policies to tackle litter into his municipal waste management strategy, the Government have decided to exempt local authorities' litter duties from even their weak requirements of "general conformity". That is despite London being the worst performing region for litter, with 86 per cent. of Londoners expressing dissatisfaction—as we all know from our constituents' complaints to us.
	The proposed London waste and recycling forum may bring stakeholders together, but, with no legal powers, it is highly unlikely to put forward solutions for London. Voluntary arrangements have failed London for the past 20 years, so there is no cause for optimism that they will suddenly start to work now. The proposed London waste and recycling fund will be financed by diverting money from the boroughs' waste and performance efficiency grant. Gershon efficiencies that could be achieved through a single waste disposal authority—estimated at £40 million—are not being realised. The Mayor's proposal for a single waste disposal authority offers a number of benefits. It provides strong and effective leadership through a mayoral-led functional body. It would improve the commercial attractiveness of London's waste market by reducing the number of decision makers and hurdles to clear, working with Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the energy sector and London boroughs to deliver solutions.
	Waste management can make a positive contribution towards climate change. A co-ordinated approach can reduce transport movements. It could involve investment in our canals and using waste to produce biofuels and hydrogen to fuel London's buses. However, that needs organising at a city level. It cannot be implemented by 16 different waste disposal authorities. The need for innovation and efficient delivery has not changed significantly since the GLC's abolition. When the Government gave the Mayor strategic responsibility for municipal waste in London through the formation of the Greater London authority, they conceded that existing arrangements were not delivering for London. It is now time for the Government to go one step further to ensure that they do.
	I understand that the Government's concern is that collection and disposal should be carried out by one authority only, because they believe that to be somehow better or more efficient. However, that argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Two-tier authorities in London, where collection is carried out by the borough and disposal is carried out separately by the four joint authorities, perform as well—or perhaps I should say, no worse—as borough councils that do both, in terms of recycling. Outside London, district councils collect and shire counties dispose of waste. Some of the shires and districts, with that divided relationship, are among the best performers in the country. What is important is that the waste disposal authority has adequate powers to ensure that the collection authorities deliver their waste to disposal facilities in a specified manner.
	Collection is fundamentally a local issue. It is dependant mainly on how far a rubbish truck can be driven in a day. Disposal requires significant investment in facilities and planning at a city-wide level, with the ability to co-ordinate the transfer points for collection authorities. It makes clear sense to do that on a city-wide basis to minimise transport movements, to ensure that facilities and contracts of the appropriate size are delivered, and to make full use of economies of scale and efficiencies.
	London's waste governance arrangements are failing. A step change is required if we are to show that we are serious about the environmental challenges that London faces. The measures proposed in the Bill shift money from the boroughs to the Mayor, create talking shops and invite planning disputes; they do not ensure efficient, sustainable co-ordinated waste management.
	As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in 1985, in his capacity as Environment spokesperson, when discussing the proposals for post-GLC waste management:
	"The nettle should have been grasped and it should have been acknowledged that waste disposal, as opposed to waste collection, could not possibly be handled on a borough-by-borough basis."—[ Official Report, 8 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 808.]
	I thus urge the Government to reconsider their position and to propose amendments to create a single waste disposal authority for London. This important matter remains to be resolved, so I hope that it will be considered in much more detail in Committee.
	With that caveat, the Bill represents a major step forward for the governance of London. It provides for further devolution that builds on the previous arrangements that we put forward to meet our manifesto commitment when we were first elected. The Bill shows the Government's commitment to London, to devolution and to ensuring that we have a proper city-wide administration. It is regrettable that Opposition parties do not intend to support the Bill wholeheartedly tonight. That shows that they care little about London and Londoners.

Richard Ottaway: I start with a plea. The Bill that became the Greater London Authority Act 1999 was the second longest Bill in the history of Parliament, being exceeded only by a Finance Bill. It had 26 Committee sittings, with the Committee stage lasting two and a half months. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who has just left the Chamber, reminded us, there were more than 1,000 amendments. That Bill received intense scrutiny in Committee, but when it came back to the House on Report, vast chunks of the Bill were replaced without any debate whatsoever. Vast chunks of the Bill were then replaced in the Lords, and most of the Lords amendments that this House considered went through without debate because of a guillotine. Those amendments included measures on revenue-raising powers. I sincerely hope that this Greater London Authority Bill has a happier passage through the House.
	Conservative Members supported the Third Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill of 1999, but we tabled a reasoned amendment in which we accepted the principle of the authority, but expressed our reservations about the congestion charge, the nature of the assembly and the imbalance with the boroughs. As we come to review the workings of the 1999 Act, it seems we did not make a bad judgment at the time. The assembly's operations are restricted and the congestion charge has had its problems. This Bill will diminish the boroughs' powers even further.
	A voice for London is a good thing. The Mayor should speak for this major city on the world stage. However, the voice that we have at present has tarnished the image of London. The position of Mayor is one of not just responsibility, but integrity. The cheeky chappie stuff only goes so far; frankly we do not need the Nazi jibes, the scuffles outside parties and the cheap stunts, such as the trip to Venezuela where the Mayor was rebuffed to the embarrassment of the people of London. The people of London want a well run authority with no gimmicks. They want jobs, homes and security.
	The Bill addresses the question of homes. As you will have been able to tell by the number of interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker, many hon. Members have spoken about the interaction between planning and housing, although I will not go into that matter in great depth, especially bearing in mind your strictures. However, I have reached the conclusion that as the Mayor gets more and more powers to set the level of affordable housing, developers will become more and more wary about the number of houses that they build. In my constituency, I believe that too many one-bedroom flats and insufficient three-bedroom family houses have been built, but that should be a matter for Croydon council to decide.
	My second conclusion about the planning and development powers in the Bill is that if the Mayor is to have an even greater say on major developments, the borough of Croydon, which has several major developments in the pipeline, will find that developers will bypass the council and go straight to the Mayor. That will create a weakness in the system and diminish the powers of the authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) ably showed up the flaws in the Bill in her opening speech.
	I am still not sure of the direction in which the Government want the GLA to go. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who cleverly took the 1999 Bill through the House—I was the Opposition spokesman at the time—said that there would not be a GLC mark 2. However, it is looking increasingly like that. After ten years of Labour, London has the only regional government that has got off the ground. Part of the motive was to give back a voice to the people of London, but a lot of it was to correct the imbalance of what was going on with devolution to Scotland and Wales and the embarrassment of the unanswered West Lothian question.
	There is a hotch-potch of responsibilities at present. The Government do not want London to have the same sort of powers as Scotland and Wales, but they do not want power to go down to the boroughs. Let me pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) when he intervened to talk about what my former colleague Steve Norris has said. In a way, Steve Norris is right. The Mayor wants more powers. We should give powers to either the boroughs, or the Mayor, but we should not have a rag-bag in the middle with the powers divided. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich talked about the question of devolved powers or strategic powers. I do not think that the right balance has been achieved. The Bill misses many opportunities. Making the Mayor more accountable for his strategies should be at the heart of the Bill.
	The assembly could effectively be reformed. Proportional representation has led to weaknesses in the way in which it operates. The assembly's only serious power is the ability to veto the budget, but two thirds of assembly members are needed to do so. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, the Mayor can thus get his budget through the assembly by using a one third blocking minority, which is most of the Labour group and the odd Green —[ Interruption. ] A very odd Green. The combination of that blocking minority and proportional representation means that the Mayor is largely unfettered.
	Although this is not my party's policy, I have always favoured an assembly that represents the 33 London boroughs. Such an assembly would build better bridges with the boroughs than the existing structure. The GLA sits aloofly above the boroughs, looking down on them, which was also a weakness of the old GLC. I know that my proposal is not popular with the assembly. I do not intend to be critical, but I think that direct or indirect elections on a borough basis would improve relations. Accountability would also be improved, because assembly members would be elected by the people of the boroughs.
	There is no way in which a Mayor who is out of control can be constrained. The leader of an authority can be removed by his group. The First Ministers of Scotland and Wales can be removed, as can Prime Ministers. However, even if every psychiatrist in Harley street declared the Mayor of London to be criminally insane, there would be absolutely nothing that anyone could do about it. One of the weaknesses of the Bill is the lack of provision for a recall petition, as it is called in the United States. Under such a system, an agreed number of signatures would result in a referendum on the status of the Mayor and his record would be put to test.
	There is a muddle of merging the powers of the executive and the legislature. Prime Ministers, First Ministers, MPs and councillors are all elected for a term of office in a legislature. However, if they move to the executive from the legislature, their roles in the executive are dependent on others. In countries in which the executive and the legislature are separate, checks and balances are installed in the system. For example, the mayor of New York can be removed by the Governor of New York, under certain criteria. The mayor of Paris can be removed by an Order in Council, under certain criteria. In my judgment, such a thing should be possible in London.

Richard Ottaway: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. The point is made that the ballot box provides accountability, and so it does, but I ask this quite genuinely: what happens if the Mayor goes bananas two years into his term of office, and sits there like some manic creature? That is a serious problem to consider, and powers ought to be put in the legislation to enable us to remove the Mayor, if we should want to do so.
	We opposed the congestion charge when it was debated in Committee, but I recognise that things have moved on. We have to address the problem of congestion, and there are a number of ways of dealing with it: we could close the roads, physically limit the number of cars going into London, or introduce road pricing. However, we Opposition Members have to accept that the die is cast—contracts have been signed, all the equipment is in place, and the scheme is about to expand to west London in a few weeks' time, so, in truth, there is no going back on it. Road pricing is to be introduced on motorways, too.
	However, there is an important point to make. It is proposed that there should be a £25 charge for cars that emit a certain amount of CO2. I am glad we have moved away from making attacks on 4x4 cars, because plenty of cars with two-wheel drives emit more CO2 than many with four-wheel drives. Such exercises are not cases of joined-up government. Will the Mayor set the same CO2 emissions targets as, say, Richmond upon Thames council will set, in order to restrict parking arrangements in Richmond? If cars are to be regulated according to their CO2 emissions, the matter should be dealt with nationally; otherwise, there will be a patchwork of restraint. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made a point about Kennington earlier, in a devastating intervention on the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. People on one side of Kennington might emit the same amount of CO2 as those the other side of Kennington, but on one side, a person will have to pay £25 to drive a car, and on the other side, it will be free. In truth, such a scheme would be nothing but gesture politics.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) raised a point about consultation. A consultation was conducted on whether or not to extend the congestion charge zone to west London, and 70 or 80 per cent. of people said that they were against it. The Mayor then ignored that consultation, but the question is whether that is right. What is the point of spending public money on a consultation exercise if there is a cavalier disregard for it? Indeed, there was never any intention of acting on what was suggested in the consultation, and the Minister only holds consultations because he is obliged to do so under legislation. There is a simple remedy for that: we should insert a one-line clause, saying that he should have due regard to any consultation. That would oblige him to take account of the people of London. The legislation could be improved, and my party's Front-Bench team are right to oppose it tonight. I wish my colleagues who are to serve on the Committee well in improving the Bill.

Kate Hoey: I shall be brief. Reference has been made to the fact that we used to have great London debates on policing, and it is true that whenever we discuss London, there is far more yah-boo and there are far more party-political interventions than in other debates. I am slightly concerned, because really the issue is what we, collectively—particularly us London MPs, who are proud to represent the city—think is best for London, and how we think it should be governed. Difficult as it is, we should all start from the premise of deciding whether a measure is the right thing to do, whatever the politics of the Mayor. Sometimes, for us Labour Members, things are shaped by the fact that we have a Labour Mayor. Obviously, if there were a Conservative or a Liberal Democrat Mayor, which is highly unlikely, the chances are that some of us might think slightly differently about things.
	I agree with a great deal of what is in the Bill, and given that we now have a Mayor, and given how the system works, I am happy for the Mayor to have certain powers. For example, he has been given powers on the museum of London. One of the most successful aspects of the Greater London council was its arts policy. The South Bank centre is in my constituency, and in theory it is run by the Arts Council and others, but it is actually an incredibly undemocratic body. The South Bank centre is one of London's big, cultural centres, and I should have thought that if the Mayor is to have a cultural policy, he should have more involvement in that, so that it is not run by people who are not necessarily accountable in any way to anyone—certainly to no one in the local community.
	My concerns about the Bill relate to its planning aspects, and many of the provisions may be changed, including perhaps the technical details, in Committee. However, the way in which we define "strategic" is of concern to me. That word can mean so many different things to different people. It is important that the Committee should have an absolute definition of what we mean by "strategic", as has been promised by the Minister. If the Mayor himself decides what is strategic, most of the north of my constituency will presumably be seen as strategic, because it is along the river and is in central London. I do not see why the residents and the community in areas along the north of the river in my constituency should be treated any differently, in terms of their involvement in what will happen there, simply because their area has been defined as a strategic area of London.
	Similarly, Waterloo station has been defined as an area in which it is likely that a cluster of tall buildings will be built, but an active local community lives there, and it must have some say in that. If there are to be bigger developments—I know that it will mean that there will be section 106 money, so we will get more affordable housing—it is crucial that we be clear about what we mean by "strategic", and that we define it narrowly. The Mayor already has vast planning powers, and effectively those powers are not scrutinised. That is why I want to go back to the issue of transparency. No matter how hard Greater London assembly members work, the membership does not have any teeth. It does not really have anything other than being able to say to the Mayor, "We don't like this." If the Mayor does not like what they say, he simply says, "Well, tough." If the Mayor is to be the planning authority, we must be able to deal with him in the same way as we deal with other planning authorities. At the moment, when it comes to how we will deal with the strategic decisions—the Minister may be able to respond to this point in his closing remarks—the public will not be entitled to make direct representations; they will have to make them to their local authority. No doubt, it will almost always be the case that the officers of that local authority will pass on to the Mayor whatever they want to pass on, wrapped up in some kind of misleading report, as we often see that in planning committees. The public will not be able to speak, the decision will not be taken in a public arena, and the report on which the decision will be based will not be challengeable. The considerations that will accompany the report at the point at which the decision is made will not be known. That, to me, means that it is not transparent. The decision-maker, although accountable every four years, is not accountable in the way we all think of accountability. That is not to say that that is wrong in running a big city such as London, but we must be aware that if that is the case, we have to build in some safeguards; otherwise, the public will not feel that the system is fair. The idea seems to be that we will take critical decisions about major developments in central London, on London's future, without Londoners having direct access to those decisions. The Mayor's decisions should be based on published reports, which are open to scrutiny. Unless we deal with that in Committee, there will be serious problems with the way in which the measure operates. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government still propose that the Mayor should be able to take over the handling of applications on which he has not made any public statements of support or opposition? It would be incredibly difficult for the Mayor to make a decision on any tall tower blocks in London, because he has repeatedly said that he wants to see tower blocks in different parts of the capital. In all honesty, how can he be seen to take an independent view if he has said such things?

Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman may be right, or he may be wrong. The Minister nodded at him, but he did so, too, when I raised the matter, so perhaps he can clarify the matter at the end of our debate. The Mayor is not someone who fails to speak his mind, so he must be incredibly careful if the provision is accepted in its present form. We need to see the details to make sure that the huge power at his disposal will be properly exercised. I can only speak from my own constituency experience, but the Mayor is happy to meet developers. Those meetings are not minuted, as the participants do not necessarily sit round the table—it is sofa diplomacy—and I am not sure that that is right. He meets representatives of community groups, but it very much depends on whether they succeed in gaining his ear. The special attention given to developers should not mean that people in the local community are ignored or pushed aside. Ultimately, if London is to be a cohesive city and if people are to believe that they have influence on the major planning decisions that affect their lives, they must believe that they can become involved. Unless the provision is changed to make clear the circumstances in which the Mayor can intervene and override local opinion, and when he cannot do so, I fear that we will be in great difficulty.

David Evennett: I am glad to be able to contribute to our debate on the Bill, and to raise the concerns of my constituents. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who highlighted her concerns in a measured and carefully reasoned speech.
	I was disappointed by the opening performance of the Minister for Housing and Planning, and by the speech of my near neighbour, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), as they both spoke as technocrats, without any passion or real interest in the views of the public locally—no "power to the people" on the Labour Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), on the other hand, achieved a much better balance, as she highlighted the needs of London residents.  [ Interruption. ] The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) may laugh—the debate will degenerate if he continues on that route—but my hon. Friend highlighted concerns about planning, as well as the importance of debating London issues. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, the debate must be conducted on a higher plane if we wish to try to look at the matter objectively, so I was disappointed by the partisan comments of the Minister for Housing and Planning.
	Many people in the outer suburbs were not very happy with the original concept of the Mayor and the Greater London assembly but, as my hon. Friends have said, the caravan has moved on. Those original concerns focused on cost, bureaucracy and the number of additional staff that would be employed, and I am afraid that they have been realised. It was thought that the Mayor would not be concerned about the suburbs but with central London or zone 1. Unfortunately, that has largely come to pass. As we all accept, the Mayor and the GLA are here to stay. The Government want to move on, and give more powers and a greater remit to a regional authority. Why are those powers to be increased? Who will benefit, and what will the costs be? From my own perspective, I might ask: what have the Mayor and the GLA done for Bexley since 2000? The Mayor has not visited the area very often—I think that he has been to the borough only once in that period—and he always appears uninterested in the residents of outer London. Has Bexley benefited from the establishment of the GLA and the Mayor? We had at least one benefit—my hon. Friend who is now the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) was a superb GLA representative, who took up the issues in our area.

Jeremy Corbyn: The decision on the 700-odd one-bedroom flats in my constituency was made entirely locally by the Liberal Democrat council. That was a disgrace, and unfortunately the decision was not called in.
	The powers of the Mayor over the London housing board and the Housing Corporation are very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) mentioned the behaviour of the Peabody Trust in selling large numbers of vacant properties. It is outrageous that housing associations should sell any vacant properties. We have a housing crisis in London. It is not the function of housing associations to sell off vacant property to the highest bidder at a time when people are living in hostel accommodation or in unsatisfactory rented accommodation, and children are growing up in grossly overcrowded circumstances, with the problems that that creates for everyone in our society. I hope that in Committee the Bill can be strengthened in respect of housing.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about waste management and waste disposal. I do not understand why we cannot think this through. Waste collection is an obvious thing for a local authority to do. Some of them do it well while some do it less well, and some are very keen on recycling while others are less keen—but overall London's record on waste disposal is not good. For a long time, we tipped an awful lot of refuse into the North sea. We filled up every piece of landfill that we could find all over London and the south-east. There is even the idea of exporting waste abroad.
	We must be serious about recycling: first, by reducing the amount of waste that we create; secondly, by having serious recycling methods and targets; and thirdly, by ensuring that that the whole thing is properly run. This should be an ideal opportunity for a London authority, under the Mayor and the GLA, to take over waste disposal so that we have imaginative ways of dealing with it. For example, the creation of gas from waste and composting systems are both eminently possible. I understand why the Minister said earlier that she did not want to disrupt the existing process; that is a reasonable consideration. However, we do not have a reasonable situation, given the pathetically low rates of recycling across London, and now we have a legislative opportunity to do something about it.
	We have achieved a lot in London over the past few years in improvements to public transport. It was not the Mayor's fault that the public-private partnership was introduced; he fought against it strongly. We have to give enormous credit to Ken Livingstone as Mayor for the huge improvements that have taken place in bus services, the accessibility of bus services, and the reduction in car use through the congestion charge. We are the only major city in the world where car usage is going down and bus usage, and public transport usage as a whole, is going up. That is something that we can be very proud of.
	We have the opportunity to make London an even better city than it is, but we have to address the social inequalities. There is enormous poverty and need, and it is up to us to create a structure of government in London that gives elected officials the ability to deal with those problems. That is why more, not fewer, powers need to be given to the people of London, and why we particularly need to address the desperate need for housing for people who are growing up in awful conditions that are unacceptable, unnecessary and unsatisfactory in the 21st century.

Simon Hughes: I am in the slightly strange position of having tried to be the Mayor but none the less representing City hall and all who work in it because they are in my constituency. My hon. Friend is right that there is a strategic case for more powers coming from the Government to London, but there are genuine fears in my borough, as in hers, that a partisan Mayor makes partisan decisions and punishes people who do not support him in borough X or borough Y. That is the first problem. Secondly, if one overrides local decisions about the location of the required housing, what would motivate people to be councillors and active citizens when, at the end of the day, all the activity simply results in someone saying, "I'm sorry but we're going to overturn the decision and the housing will go where we want it, not where you as a community decide that you have to put it to meet your needs."

Harry Cohen: I have enjoyed the debate, and I do not want to denigrate earlier speakers, but as I listened I could not help but think—as an old hand—how much wittier and more informed it would have been if our old friend Tony Banks had been able to contribute, with his great knowledge of the subject.
	Let me say a word about the contributions from the Opposition. Leading for the Conservatives, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) called for more accountability and transparency; but—again, as an old hand—I well remember that when the Tories were in power there were more quangos, and less and less democratic accountability. Local government was shackled. The Tories even abolished the Greater London council, and where they replaced its roles they were performed by quangos.
	As for the Liberal Democrats, we heard a very righteous speech from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), but it boiled down to "We will vote for the Bill on Second Reading, but we are likely to vote against it at a later stage". How typical of the Liberal Democrats to wait for a later stage, when they can say "We supported it" or, if it suits them, "We opposed it". But the speeches of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats showed that they had one thing in common.

Harry Cohen: I am talking about the effect across London, not just in an individual borough. The point of the Bill is for the Mayor to speed up the provision of affordable housing, and to provide more of it. By putting a brake on that, Opposition Members are damaging those families in overcrowded conditions.
	I know that the Bill is about the mayoralty and the Mayor's role as an institution, but there have been some derogatory comments about the Mayor himself. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), for instance, talked of the Mayor's Venezuelan connection. The truth is, though, that the Mayor has a real record of achievement in London. He was very brave to introduce the congestion charge. There may still be congestion problems in London, but on the whole the charge is deemed to be a success. The Mayor has also invested a large amount in public transport and policing in London, which has benefited Londoners. I wanted to pick up those references to him as an individual, although I know we are talking about an institution.
	Although the Bill gives the Mayor more powers, they are fairly limited in many ways, and some of them are also quite weak. There are quite a lot of checks, one of which is in the parallel Bill, the Further Education and Training Bill. We discussed that yesterday in the Work and Pensions Committee, as the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said in an intervention. I have to say that the Learning and Skills Council has not been effective in upgrading the skills of Londoners and in meeting job market demands. Also, who is the LSC accountable to? It is better that it comes within the ambit of the Mayor. He will have an overall role—although a weak one—in bringing it together with bodies such as Jobcentre Plus, but he will not have what is needed: some carrots and sticks, for example to make employers do their job properly in respect of improving training. That is an example of there being a better power for the Mayor, but one that remains quite weak.
	There are also the housing and planning functions; I want to discuss planning in particular. There are the waste management functions as well. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), and with other interventions including by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), that they are not really good enough for London in the current circumstances as there is a need to have much improved waste management. It is stated that other authorities will have to have a "general conformity" with the Mayor's waste management strategy. What is a "general conformity"? Does that mean that they can ignore it if they wish? That is not good enough. There should be a control over disposal, and I favour a strategic waste management authority for London as a whole, under the Mayor.
	One of the climate change powers is a duty to try to reduce carbon emissions. That is incredibly important, but just how far does it run? I hope that it runs a long way and that the Bill contains a lot of such powers for the Mayor, but I doubt that very much. I suggest that the Liberal Democrats and other Members explore that matter in Committee.
	Reducing health inequalities and improving public health is an important role. The Mayor will appoint the regional public health director for London. But, again, the powers are quite weak as all the myriad authorities and health trusts will actually have control—and all of them will have their own public health authorities as well. So the Mayor can play an important role on health, but I think that he will only really make an impact at the margins.
	The museum of London role is also important, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, the Mayor should play a much bigger role in terms of arts and culture in London. That takes us back to Tony Banks, who made a big impact when he played that role for Londoners.
	However, I want to talk about housing and planning in particular. Affordable housing is at the heart of this proposed legislation, and that is why I support it. I mentioned that there are a lot of people living in overcrowded and temporary homes, yet we will have population growth of 800,000 over the next 10 years so there is a great need to get on with building houses for families and others who need them. We must, however, be careful when we go on a big housing drive. We must not forget the need for quality—the properties that are built must be of good quality—and nor must we forget that London depends very much on its green spaces. If people are to have a decent environment to live in, the green spaces in many areas must be protected. Such considerations must be the counter to just pushing ahead—to the market approach to housing. They must be built into the plans as well.
	That leads me on to the Mayor's role in strategic planning. I note that he will not get involved in most local applications; I think that it has been said that 99 per cent. will still be dealt with at local level. However, he will be able to call in strategic applications. Although I support that, I do not think that this system is appropriate overall. We should be looking for a different sort of system. Last week, I visited New Zealand with the Work and Pensions Committee, and I had the opportunity to have a cup of tea with Mrs. Daphne Steele, a great environmental campaigner in New Zealand who has been awarded a medal for her activities there. She told me about the environmental court system that New Zealand uses, which I found very interesting. She took certain major strategic planning applications to that court, and when the environment was taken into account in a fuller way by neutral judges—or by judges with a concern for the environment, at least—she won the day. Given the problems associated with climate change, there is a very real case for putting such major planning applications before an environmental court.
	An environmental court should be combined with a system of prior notification. It is clear that not all such applications should go before an environmental court, but it should be signalled that an application deemed of great environmental importance could go before such a court at the beginning of the process, if sufficient objections on environmental grounds were raised.
	Where the Mayor or the Government say that a particular application is in London's or the national interest, what is the point of going through a long and arduous planning process? The planning inspector found against the Oxford immigration centre planning application, for example, but the Deputy Prime Minister stepped in and said that it was in the national interest. Why do we have that process for deciding on such an application, given that the decision is based in the first place on whether it is the national interest or the London interest? In such cases, an environmental court could consider what the major mitigating environmental factors are, and a system of prior notification could be used.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am very sympathetic to many of the things that he is saying, but the difficulty is that the judgments about national and regional interest are subjective ones. Rotherhithe has just had a great battle with the Secretary of State over a small planning application that went to inquiry. The inspector recommend that the local authority view be supported, but the Secretary of State has ignored that and supported the developer, presumably because she thinks that it is more than just a local matter. However, we are talking about a very small site that is not in a metropolitan centre. People fear that in such a case, a different judgment is applied and a perceived regional or national interest is imposed, when it fact, it should be an entirely local matter.

Andrew Dismore: Is not the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that, under the current arrangements, there are no criteria governing the Secretary of State's decision as to whether a particular project can or cannot be called in? However, bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Minister said when she introduced the debate, we will have very clear criteria governing what is and is not a strategic issue from the Mayor's point of view.

Lee Scott: Many Members are still waiting to speak, so I shall be brief.
	I begin with housing. I know from my surgery cases that more housing is vital, and I agree with Members on both sides of the House on that point. I shall certainly not argue against more housing, but it should be quality housing that people can afford and that they want to live in, rather than shoe boxes built where nobody wants to live.
	I do not intend to be detrimental to the current mayoral incumbent. Instead, I congratulate the London borough of Redbridge, which the Mayor recognises is doing a wonderful job, because he gave it an award for its housing and regeneration programme. I know that because he presented it to me when I was the cabinet member responsible.
	Housing cannot be built without the necessary infrastructure. Not long ago, at Prime Minister's questions, I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government would fully fund the new primary schools needed to support the housing requirements of the London borough of Redbridge. Unfortunately, I received no assurances, but I am delighted to tell colleagues that we shall be building two new primary schools to meet the needs of children in the borough over the next two years, and that there will be a new secondary school by 2010.
	The people best placed to make planning decisions are democratically elected local councillors—not the Mayor and not central Government, but people who know the communities best and live in them. We should give them more power, not less. In my constituency, planning applications are often turned down locally but then approved nationally. That process benefits nobody. It is truly ridiculous and does not meet housing requirements or the needs of my constituents. The situation cannot continue.
	On health, part of the Mayor's powers under the Bill would be to stop inequalities. I hope that one such measure will be to stop cuts at the hospitals serving my constituency and, indeed, those of the hon. Members for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes). The proposed cuts will create more inequalities, not less. Those cuts must be opposed and I trust that whoever is incumbent in the Mayor's post will oppose them.
	As someone who commutes daily to and from my constituency, what can I say about Transport for London? Having to stand on trains in travelling conditions that we would not legally allow for animals is unacceptable. That is why people are leaving London. Such travelling conditions and the stress that they cause are unacceptable. Before more powers are given to Transport for London, perhaps it should look after and exercise its existing ones better. I do not believe that it is doing that.
	I was not in the House when the Bill that dealt with the congestion charge was debated and went through, but if the money was truly invested in better quality transport, perhaps there would be less resistance to it, but that is not happening. If we look at transport problems that have affected the underground network over the last few weeks, it is not a question of if or when there will be problems: there are problems on it every minute of every day. That is not fair to my constituents or any London constituents.
	This is a great city and I am proud to be the Member of Parliament representing the constituency of Ilford, North. I believe that London is a city that can go from strength to strength and deserves to do so. I do not oppose many aspects of the Bill, but I will vote against it. I hope that it can be rectified in Committee to make it a Bill that the people of London deserve.

Bob Neill: I, too, shall endeavour to be brief. To my mind, the Bill is disappointing. I regret having to say that because, as the Minister knows, I have been involved in London politics for a long time. We had an opportunity to enhance greatly the delivery of services for residents of London, but, in a number of ways, the Government have missed it.
	First, the Government have not been bold enough at the strategic level. They have failed to achieve optimum accountability and transparency in terms of the delivery of services in the skills sector and in health. An enormous democratic deficit still remains in relation to health and skills in London, which the Government have not dealt with.
	Secondly, the Government have remained wedded to a national template for the Government office for London, but that is not necessary. If there is a devolved system in London, it is not necessary for the Government office to take the same form as those elsewhere that currently administer some 30 schemes, worth many millions of pounds. I say that with no personal disrespect to the Minister, but the fact is that we have devolution, so we should follow its logic through and hand more powers from central Government down to Londoners, whether it be to the Mayor, the functional bodies or, indeed, in some cases, the London boroughs. The Government have, I am afraid, ducked that issue.
	The Bill fails at the strategic level and, to make it worse, instead of giving the Mayor more strategic power, it takes power away from the boroughs in respect of important matters such as planning. My constituents in Bromley, an outer London borough, already find that the Mayor seeks to impose on them a one-size-fits-all planning policy. Planning policies and planning densities that are appropriate in inner London and even in suburban town centres are not appropriate in established residential suburbs, but the Mayor seeks to drive them through regardless. The Mayor, I am afraid, has not been a good advocate for giving his own office more powers. Perhaps it is his own erratic behaviour that has caused the Government to duck following the logic of their own devolution position. If that is the case, it is regrettable. It leaves my constituents with less service delivery, which is subject to less transparency, but with more burdens placed upon them.
	The third failure is the lack of balance within the Greater London authority. Consider the following: "We will create a single powerful figure in a way that is completely alien to all the normal practices of British politics... My worry has always been that we will create a post into which someone can be locked for four years with very few checks and balances." I suspect that the Minister is familiar with the quote, which comes from the current Mayor of London when he was a Member of the House. What he said has been proved right. The Mayor has changed his mind, of course, but he has changed it on so many things that it does not greatly surprise us. He was right the first time, which means that when the Mayor gets more powers, the London assembly should get more powers to hold him to account.
	It cannot be right that we will have a one-man planning authority who will deal—with respect to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford)—not only with strategic plans but with individual applications. That is a thoroughly undesirable state of affairs on any view. It should be written into the Bill, not dependent on the concession of the Mayor, that that should not happen. The assembly should have a role before the Mayor comes to a decision.
	It cannot be right either that some 10 pages of the Bill are taken up with what should be the simple proposition that the assembly should be able to set its own budget. There must be a better and easier way to deal with that. Finally, the assembly should have the power to amend the Mayor's strategies. The Deputy Prime Minister, when the original legislation was considered, recognised that the assembly should have that power, but he shied away from it before it became law. That was an error, but there is time to put it right. That would be an opportunity to rebalance the system in London advantageously.
	I am sorry to have to raise those points so briefly. The Minister and I are used to disappointments because we have seen so many at Upton Park recently, but in Committee he has the chance to become the Alan Curbishley of the Bill and save something from the wreckage by improving accountability and balance.

Andrew Pelling: First, I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a member of the GLA, and have a particular interest in clause 1, which deals with compensation for retiring GLA members.
	It is important to be positive in this debate, and to recognise the GLA's success. By bringing consistent strategies together with different partners, it has secured a great deal for London. The GLA has been able to represent London's interests, through its ability to pose questions to the Mayor for two and half hours every month—a grilling longer than anything faced by many Ministers. In addition, the Mayor is represented as an advocate for London, and that is another reason to commend the GLA on its work.
	The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) was right to say that the Bill is very timid. There should be a much more significant improvement in the powers coming down from Government to the GLA. In parallel legislation, it is very disappointing that the Learning and Skills Council responsibility has not been passed to the Mayor, given that the London Development Agency, as part of the regional development agency family, has been a principal deliverer under the GLA.
	It strikes me that there is much talk of cognisance of health inequalities in relation to the proposed legislation, but the Mayor is not given the power to deliver directly on health issues. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) said about the obvious clash between the role the Mayor will be given and the continuing role of NHS London. The GLA should be the place for the strategic health authority. Perhaps the Government could have been even more radical and given PCT powers to successful and well performing councils, and therefore improved democratic accountability in relation to health.
	I know that funding flows are likely to be increased in relation to the various granting that takes place from the Government office for London, but I would have thought that it would be worth while to give to the GLA some of the crime and disorder grants that GOL currently provides. That would fit in much more appropriately with the policing powers that are there. All that would leave GOL as a small strategic unit with important roles in areas such as resilience and in relation to being a gateway to Government.
	There is a lack of a radical approach to the assembly. As other Members suggested, the two-thirds rule has left the assembly as a toothless wonder. One example of real action would be to require the assembly—within the resources provided—to set up a budget and performance office. That would work much more effectively in analysing the performance of the GLA as a whole. In many ways, the assembly benefited from what has already been described in the debate as a generous settlement by the Mayor when it was set up. In many ways, it has been placed in a gilded cage. There is a certain sense of bedevilment in relation to the Mayor, and perhaps even the Government, in terms of having a separate budget for the assembly, which will show just how expensive a project it is. If there were an obligation on the assembly to direct its resources towards a budget performance office, that would be good news.
	There also could have been powers for a call-in provision in relation to looking at some of the mayoral decisions, as is provided for in relation to local government. Perhaps we could have looked at the idea of separate billing for the GLA tax. That would go down extremely well with local boroughs that feel that their lower increases in tax are hidden by the GLA's large increases. It was announced today that there will be another 5.6 per cent. increase above the capping level that the Mayor is proposing.

Andrew Pelling: Yes, I am, because I support the approach of the chair of the assembly, which is to be positive about London government. I will vote against the Bill because it does not go far enough and shows a lack of logic in terms of the support that is given to London's governance.
	Finally, perhaps one other small change could have been proposed in the Bill. Thought should be given to the term of the next Mayor of London, which will finish shortly before the Olympic games. Some consideration might be given to that next term finishing in the autumn of 2012, rather than just before the Olympic games take place.

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on flip-flops, but I think that we heard enough from him earlier.
	At the centre of the Bill, as we acknowledge, are the questions of housing and planning. New housing powers are needed in London because there are problems with overcrowding and lack of supply, which were highlighted in my hon. Friends' eloquent contributions. If we are to increase the housing supply London, we must look at which boroughs have delivered on the ground and exceeded their housing target. Wandsworth has exceeded it by 168 per cent., Westminster by 124 per cent., Bromley by 124 per cent., and Bexley by 205 per cent. Those councils are all united by the fact that they are Conservative-controlled: they deliver housing, they exceed their targets, and they deliver for their voters.
	At the bottom of the league table, the councils that fail to deliver housing are Camden, which delivers only 90 per cent. of its targets, Barking, which delivers only 83 per cent., Merton, which delivers only 54 per cent., and Waltham Forest, which delivers only 45 per cent. All those councils are united by the fact that until recently they were Labour-led. There is a record of Labour failure to deliver housing to the people of London. The answer to the question of what we can do to increase housing supply in London is clear—vote Conservative.
	The Bill's planning powers were criticised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, who rightly pointed out that the Mayor exercises his powers in secret and that there is a lack of transparency. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, there are serious questions about whether the extension of his powers will lead to a conflict of interest and allegations of impropriety. We have heard about the bureaucratic nature of the process.
	The Minister said that the Mayor interfered in very few planning applications.
	Sadly, the facts are different.
	"Facts are chiels that winna ding,"
	as Robert Burns pointed out—and the facts in this case show that the Mayor has intervened in planning applications 1,269 times. Excluding high days and holy days, he has intervened for every day that he has been in power. Under the current powers, he was not able to get his way, but the Minister wants the Mayor to have his way. She would open the door to the Mayor's interfering in more and more decisions.
	That interference would lead to the system becoming more bureaucratic and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) observed, that would lead to greater delays. Westminster council manages to process 75 per cent. of its planning applications within 13 weeks. The Government's target is 60 per cent. of planning applications. Once again, a Conservative council is delivering a better service for its residents, and in consequence more housing. Under the provisions of the Bill, the Mayor would intervene nine weeks after the planning application was received—a recipe for further confusion, delay and bureaucracy, and the frustration of residents' demand for speedy processing of planning applications and better housing.

Michael Gove: No, thank you. When I want clarity I will not go to the Liberal Democrats for it. I have been disappointed there often enough.
	The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush recalled that in his area he opposed a planning application on Goldhawk road, even though the Mayor was in favour of it, yet he now wants to give the Mayor the power to override the people whom he represents, and even though he knows that the Mayor made the wrong decision in the past.
	The hon. Member for Hendon discussed the Vauxhall tower scheme. He backed the Mayor's decision to say yes to that scheme, but as the hon. Member for Vauxhall pointed out, every party in Lambeth opposed the scheme. Why? Because it did not provide enough affordable housing units at the time. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush says that the key thing that Labour wants to do is to increase the delivery of affordable housing. The Mayor frustrated that in connection with that planning application, so as the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich can see, the Mayor's intervention is not always on the side of delivering more housing. Often, it is on the side of frustrating it.
	At the heart of this confused Bill lies a philosophical—indeed, an ideological—cleavage at the heart of the Department sponsoring it. We have, in the shape of the Minister for Housing and Planning, the voice of central control, and we have, in the shape of the Secretary of State, the sometimes muted voice of localism. In the course of her remarks today, the Minister said that the Bill was about allowing the Mayor to do his job. The Mayor will be best placed to intervene, she said. But the Secretary of State, speaking in Lewisham, said:
	"Whether it is ensuring greater responsiveness to neighbourhood issues or giving greater control to local communities, it makes sense to ensure that local people can have a greater say in their areas. After all, they know their patch and its people best. They know which problems are top of the priority list. And, more often than not, they have a pretty good idea of what is needed to resolve them."
	That shows a clear split between the instinctive devolver and the clunking-fist centraliser.
	That is the not first time that the Minister and the Secretary of State have been divided. As I have pointed out, the Bill is about delivering housing, which is where they are philosophically divided. The Minister for Housing and Planning has said:
	"Many people are still opposing the increased housing we need so badly. Yet it won't just be young people who lose out if we don't build the new homes the next generation needs."
	Those are admirable sentiments. However, the Secretary of State has been reported as urging local residents in her constituency to
	"savour this sweet victory over the developers",
	after she blocked plans for 1,700 new homes. The chairman of her council's planning committee has said:
	"I've spent about six years on the planning committee and in my experience whenever a group of residents...object to a development...she always backs them."
	The nimby Secretary of State and the pro-development Minister are once again responsible for introducing confused and incoherent legislation. With such a divided Department, is it any wonder that we have such a confused Bill?

Michael Gove: No, thank you. I realise that, as a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Gentleman is an expert in different lines, but I will not give way at this point.
	We will shortly hear from the Minister for London, and I hope that we shall hear some clarity from him. I sympathise with him on being moved from the Department for Communities and Local Government to the Department of Trade and Industry—which, I have read, Gordon Brown now wants to get rid of. As a housing spokesman, I sympathise with his living in a condemned building, but given that he is condemning thousands of post offices to closure, I suspect that that sympathy may be limited.
	We will oppose this legislation, because we believe in genuine devolution and do not want to support a power grab from local communities. We believe in genuine accountability and power exercised at the most appropriate level. The Bill will give the Mayor of London power without accountability, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am pleased to have the chance to close this Second Reading debate. I begin by thanking all those hon. Members who contributed to our lively debate, which includes more than the previous contribution.
	My interest in the Bill is due to not only the facts that I enjoy the position of Minister for London, that I have been a Londoner for more than 30 years and that my constituency, Poplar and Canning Town, is at the heart of east London and docklands, but, as a former employee of the Greater London council as a fireman—in gender-neutral language, a firefighter—I was very involved in the democracy for London campaign, which fought against the abolition of the GLC in the '80s. I was also pleased to serve on the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which restored London's government. It was very disappointing to hear that Conservative Members will vote against the Bill tonight—I was disappointed, but not surprised.
	Many hon. Members have catalogued their attitude to strategic London government, and I shall try to respond to a number of those points. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) asked for an evidence-taking session before the Bill begins its parliamentary scrutiny. However, she knows that we had extensive consultation over many months on our manifesto proposals for additional powers and responsibilities. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has outlined, further discussions are still taking place and reports will be given to the Committee in due course.
	The hon. Lady raised specific points about mayoral planning powers. She said that the Mayor would not consult the boroughs on the London housing strategy. Section 41 of the Greater London Authority Act requires the Mayor to consult boroughs on drafts or revisions to his statutory strategies. On call-ins, the powers of the Secretary of State are unchanged. The Secretary of State will not have the power to overturn a decision by the Mayor to take over an application but will retain a power to call in the application for his or her own decision. The changes do not do away with the role of the planning inspectorate. Inspectors will continue to consider appeals where applications are refused by the Mayor or by the boroughs.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) drew on his considerable experience, especially from the passage of the original GLA Bill, on which he led. He effectively dispatched as nitpicking many of the points raised by Opposition Front Benchers. He perfectly described how and why the original proposals were so modest and why this Bill should be welcomed. He entertained us with his reference to the Tories' disarray on the Bill and the similarity to their position in 1999—his own version of "Groundhog Day".
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) challenged the continuing existence of the Government office for London. GOL has an important role to play. It represents central Government across the capital, delivering polices and programmes for 10 Departments in a joined-up way—and it is here to stay. The recent review of the Government office network by the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government confirmed the important role that it plays, but it needs to be leaner and more strategic. GOL is responding to that challenge. Its staff numbers have fallen by more than 27 per cent. since October 2004, and its budget has decreased. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to its director, Liz Meek, and her colleagues for all that they do for London.
	The hon. Gentleman repeated the inaccurate statistic that the Mayor has intervened in 1,200 planning applications. In reality, the Mayor has been referred about 300 applications a year under the current thresholds. That is in line with original expectations, and it does not mean that he has intervened. He has directed refusal in very few cases. GLA figures show that he did so in only four cases in 2004-05.
	The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) raised health inequalities. Many of the determinants of poor health among Londoners are non-health issues such as poor housing and transport, emissions and accidents, which often have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged and black and minority ethnic communities. The Mayor, working with the London strategic health authority, is best placed to tackle the health determinants within his control and to work with other stakeholders to identify and tackle lifestyle choices such as smoking and participation in sports. His role is to promote a reduction in health inequalities, not to take a direct role in the delivery of health services.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) alleged that section 106 moneys will be siphoned off by the Mayor. Section 106 rules clearly state that there must be a close relationship between the section 106 agreement and the proposed development and that the agreement is necessary for the development to proceed. We are clear that the boroughs should be fully involved in section 106 issues and propose that they will decide applications in the first instance and will be consulted by the Mayor when he takes on this responsibility.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) spoke about London's housing problems and strongly supported the Government's proposals to address those needs. The hon. Member for Orpington was not at all impressed and outlined his opposition.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), in one of his shorter contributions, began by suggesting a regular London Adjournment debate. I have personal sympathy with that idea. London's contribution to the UK economy and London MPs' understanding of the issues in the capital deserve greater attention. My hon. Friend also mentioned his opposition to our proposals on waste. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning explained the reasons behind the proposals and I am sure that we shall revert to them in detail in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) said that the requirement for 50 per cent. affordable housing puts developers off. The London plan states that the 50 per cent. affordable housing target is a strategic target for London as a whole. It does not require each housing proposal to achieve 50 per cent., and the individual circumstances of each site will be taken into account. He also said that the Mayor should not be allowed to discourage high carbon-emitting cars by using policies such as those of the London borough of Richmond. The Government welcome initiatives such as those undertaken by Richmond to limit emissions from cars. We encourage innovative local initiatives to tackle increasing emissions from road transport and believe that the Mayor has an important role to play in that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked why I nodded at her and at the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). I was indicating my understanding of the points that they both made, not agreeing with either, let alone both of them. She asked several specific questions. She raised concerns that the Mayor would not be required to hear representations from those affected by development proposals. We will require the Mayor to hear representations from those directly affected by proposals and to prepare and publish a statement, setting out the way in which he will make decisions.
	My hon. Friend also said that the Mayor should not be able to table the schemes for tall buildings because he said that he was in favour of them generally. There is no inherent conflict, but each planning application must be judged on its merits. I agree that the Mayor must act and be seen to act in a way that does not prejudge the outcome of an application. He will need to take particular care about his public statements and behaviour in relation to planning applications, especially when one of his functional bodies has an interest in an application. We will encourage the GLA standards committee to draw up a code of conduct to cover the Mayor's new role in planning applications.
	The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) was disappointed that I laughed when he dismissed my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich as technocrats who had no passion while praising the opening speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham. All I can say is that we must have been in different Chambers. However, I meant no offence—it was an involuntary guffaw of disbelief.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) outlined the history of London government and the Conservative party's disappointing record over the decades. He also raised his concern about housing needs in the capital and reserve powers for the Secretary of State.
	London is of national importance in housing and has an impact on the wider south-east. Almost half the national affordable housing programme in England is spent in London. It is therefore only sensible that the Mayor's powers are subject to the Secretary of State's reserve powers and that his housing strategy and recommendations on funding must be consistent with national policies. The provisions go well beyond those that we have devolved to the regional assemblies, reflecting the capital's unique structure.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I thank my hon. Friend for his advice. I did not realise that I had used the word as often as he implies, but I take his point.
	The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) mentioned local involvement in consultation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall also raised. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) spoke passionately about housing, but my hon. Friend had much greater confidence in our determination to make progress and in the Mayor and the boroughs to deliver.
	In shorter contributions than they had perhaps prepared, the hon. Members for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), for Cities of London and Westminster, for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling), for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) and for Putney (Justine Greening) relevantly raised housing, health, accountability and scrutiny, mayoral powers and the boroughs, the timidity of the Bill, skills and training, crime reduction partnerships and the congestion charge. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst sadly managed to drag in the problems of West Ham United. I suggest to him that, by the time we successfully conclude Committee proceedings, he and I will happily be singing, "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles" together again. It is instructive, however, that the two London assembly members who sit on the Conservative Benches have indicated that they are voting against the Bill as it does not go far enough and is not bold enough, in contrast to their right hon. and hon. Friends who all believe that it goes too far. I suggest that those two hon. Gentlemen are going in the wrong direction and should join us in the Lobby tonight.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), winding up for the Opposition, raised the issue of flip-flops: a fair point. Given the recent policy reverses from the Conservative party, it was made with the authority of real experience. He spoke of the failure in housing policy, which, I would point out, goes back decades. It is a policy failure that we are now starting to put right.
	The question of the GLA's budget was raised by several Members. In 2006-07, 73 per cent. of the GLA precept went to the Metropolitan Police Authority. The precept also contributes to other key London services, such as fire and emergency planning. Only 3 per cent. goes to fund the core GLA, while 7 per cent. goes to fund the Olympics. The GLA precept has helped to fund a substantial increase in the number of police officers since the creation of the GLA: 5,658 more, a 22.7 per cent. increase between March 2001 and March 2006. That compares with an increase of about 10 per cent. for all other forces in England and Wales. It also supports the roll-out of neighbourhood policing across the capital: three quarters of the policing precept increase for 2006-07 is related to neighbourhood policing.
	Furthermore, the Mayor does not have an unfettered power in setting the precept. The assembly has the power to amend the precept by a two thirds majority, which has provided an important constraint on the Mayor's ability to set the GLA group budget. As the House knows, the Government are prepared to take capping action to deal with excessive council tax increases. We would take such action in relation to all authorities if necessary, including the GLA.
	We will have a full opportunity to examine the Bill in detail in Committee. I am pleased to have had the chance to wind up this important debate. I thank again all those who have participated this evening. We have heard a well-informed exchange of views on the structure and powers of London's strategic, city-wide government. The main purpose of the Bill is to take forward the Government' commitment to devolution by providing more powers for London's government, the Mayor and the assembly. We are determined that decisions should be taken at the right level of governance. In London, for many decisions, that means the strategic, city-wide level, and the Bill gives the Mayor the powers to take those decisions. The Bill provides the Mayor with new roles in housing and tackling climate change, and a strengthened role in planning and managing London's waste. It is a robust package of measures that devolves powers from Whitehall to city hall.
	My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning ably opened this debate by explaining that the Bill takes forward the Government's commitment to devolution. The Bill helps to ensure that the right decisions are taken at the right level. We are building on the success of the GLA to date and the Mayor's proven track record of achievement. We are strengthening his leadership of the capital, and ensuring that London's government takes more of the key strategic decisions that will deliver better public services and impact directly on Londoners' lives.
	Those of us who have lived in London over recent decades recognise the difficulties that London faced because of the abolition of the Greater London council. The Government have proudly restored London's voice. That voice has made sure that services in the capital are more effective and deliver better value for money. The Bill delivers for Londoners, and I commend it to the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .—[Mr. Irranca-Davies.]

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman neatly leads me on to my next point. As the Minister will be aware by now, there was a steel fabrication plant next door. As far as I can tell from reports so far, it contained acetylene gas cylinders. Having such cylinders in close proximity to fireworks is not a helpful or sensible idea. The presence of those cylinders may well not have been known about. The inspection and licensing regime may simply have dealt with the fireworks depot and failed—naturally perhaps—to take into account what might be in the building next door. If that is the case—I do not know whether it is—that clearly needs to be resolved when it comes to future consideration of licences. That is borne out to some degree by the thrust of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005, which have just come in. They refer to separation distances. There is obviously recognition that there needs to be some sort of exclusion zone around the explosives. I certainly agree with that concept. I wonder whether that was taken into account in terms of what was stored in the steel fabrication plant next door.
	Were the requirements on the depot sufficient? If they were sufficient, were they adhered to? When were the premises last inspected by the HSE? Was it two months ago? There is also the question of when they were inspected by the fire service and the local authority—if they do inspect the premises. Was there knowledge of the steel fabrication plant next door and its contents? Most obviously, what caused the fire? We still do not know that, and I imagine that we will not until there has been a proper investigation.
	The Minister might be aware that Sussex police said in a formal statement that during the initial stages of the attendance of the fire and rescue service and the police,
	"the information available did not indicate that an evacuation or cordon was required".
	The consequence of that was that people were in the close-by Wok Inn restaurant when windows were shattered and chunks of plaster fell from the ceiling. I am led to believe by the  Sussex Express that a nine-month-old girl narrowly escaped serious injury owing to that problem in the restaurant. Should the evacuation and cordoning arrangements have been different? Was the situation entirely unforeseen and unpredictable, meaning that nothing could have been done about it? Alternatively, in retrospect, should different arrangements be in place for the evacuation and cordoning off of such depots and plants when an incident occurs? In a sense, what level of activity is triggered by an incident somewhere such as a fireworks depot, which obviously contains explosives, and what automatic responses occur? Is evacuation one of those responses—if not, perhaps it should be? Perhaps most obviously, were firefighters sent into a situation into which they really should not have been sent, with the tragic consequences about which we know?
	A nearby resident has written to tell me that he wrote to the explosives division of the HSE in November 2005 to express his concern about the huge quantities of fireworks stored at Festival Fireworks. He feels that his letter was not responded to properly. Is there a question of whether there should be a maximum limit on the amount of explosives stored at any one site? This point perhaps relates to Buncefield as well. Should we spread the risk, in a sense, or is it better for strategic and safety reasons to concentrate it in one area where it can be properly looked after? I do not know the answer to that question, but it should be considered as part of the investigation.
	I make a further small point, which I almost hesitate to raise. Roads have been closed all around the area. Local businesses are frankly unable to trade and people cannot move around as they would normally. All those businesses, including a charity, and the local residents understand the importance of the investigation and want that to come first, but if a way could be found to ease the situation for local residents, without in any way endangering or upsetting the investigation, it would be very welcome.
	I am grateful to the Minister for her personal interest in the matter. I am also grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have expressed their sympathies to me and asked me to pass those sympathies on to my constituents. It has comforted the whole community to know that this is not simply a local matter and that people throughout the country have been concerned. We need a thorough and open inquiry, and we need to make sure that lessons are learned so that this sort of tragedy never happens again.

Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and all hon. Members who have spoken for the way in which the debate has been conducted. None of us would wish to be having the debate. We all have difficulty coming to terms with what happened during the tragic incident that took place at the Festival Fireworks depot in the hon. Gentleman's Lewes constituency on Sunday 3 December.
	My thoughts and those of the House are especially with the families of Geoff Wicker and Brian Wembridge, the two members of East Sussex fire and rescue service who died as a consequence of the incident, and with those who were injured. I extend my personal condolences and those of the House to their families, colleagues and friends.
	The written statement that I made to the House on 7 December gave a brief outline of the events leading to the deaths of Mr. Wicker and Mr. Wembridge and the injuries to 12 other people, including nine firefighters, a police officer and two members of the public. East Sussex fire and rescue service received the initial call reporting an incident at the Festival Fireworks depot at 13.49. That initial call was followed by 24 further calls from members of the public. The first crews in attendance arrived at the site at 13.59 and were faced with a rapidly developing fire in the depot, which was igniting fireworks. They made a request for further fire appliances to attend the scene on their arrival.
	Geoff Wicker, who was a retained duty system watch manager at Heathfield fire station, was on the eighth fire appliance to arrive at the incident at 14.19. It would be appropriate for me to say something about the two firefighters who lost their lives. Mr. Wicker was 49 years old. As well as being a retained watch manager, he was a watch manager at the East Sussex fire and rescue service mobilising centre. He had served the ESFRS for more than 30 years, having joined in 1975 as a retained duty system firefighter. Brian Wembridge was 63 years old and was employed by the ESFRS as a media and administration co-ordinator. He attended the incident in his capacity as video technician for the service. Mr. Wembridge had given 45 years' service to East Sussex, and he spent much of that time as a firefighter. He was appointed to the media and administration co-ordinator role in 2003.
	I shall say something more about the incident. At approximately 2.45 pm, an explosion was reported. A roll-call of all personnel at the scene was conducted, and two fire and rescue service personnel were found to be missing. A quick search revealed the location of the bodies of Mr. Wicker and Mr. Wembridge. The injuries sustained by the other 12 people ranged from cuts and bruises to concussion, and all the injured have been discharged from hospital. At the time of the reported explosion, approximately 60 firefighters were at the scene. The Health and Safety Executive was informed of the incident at about 4.30 pm that day. Contact was made, and maintained throughout the next four hours, with the principal police officer at the site and with the Sussex police firearms and explosives licensing officers, who were also on site.
	A 200 m hazard zone was established, enclosing a builder's fabrication yard where flame-cutting gas cylinders were thought to be on site. Following the reported explosion, the fire was monitored and was allowed to burn itself out. The first HSE inspector arrived on site the following morning, on Monday 4 December. The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned my interest in the case, and he will know that I have been in regular contact with the fire and rescue service. The site is currently cordoned off, so I have not been able to visit it, but I can tell him that I am in regular contact with the fire and rescue service. I have spoken to the police, too, and I intend to visit the site shortly.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions about the investigation. I shall say what I can about it, but he will understand if there are things that I cannot say, because I do not want to jeopardise the investigation in any way. An investigation is necessary if we are to get to the absolute truth, so it is appropriate that we should hold such a full investigation. It is being led by Sussex police, and experts from the HSE and ESFRS are assisting. In addition, technical expertise is being provided by my Department, as was requested.
	I shall try to address some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points. He asked why the HSE licensed an explosives site near a place where gas cylinders were kept. Licences have to take account of hazardous materials and the foreseeable usage of any flammable gases that may be present on, or near, a licensed explosives site. If a licence is issued, a separation distance must be judged between the storage site of the flammable gases and the site of the explosives building. Distances are proportionate to the type and quantity of explosives permitted by the licence, and so are proportionate to the hazard.
	The acetylene cylinders to which the hon. Gentleman referred were on adjacent premises, and the ESFRS was aware that the cylinders were there, but the cylinders were not involved until after the reported explosion. The cylinders were then subject to heat and shock, which meant that, under standing operating procedures, an exclusion zone had to be put in place. He asked me whether I could confirm the date of the last inspection, and I can: there was a site visit by an HSE inspector on 11 October 2006. The hon. Gentleman mentioned reports and concerns that had been raised with the HSE about the site. I shall not go into all the details, but although a letter was passed to the explosives inspector responsible for the site, there was no specific evidence of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, an investigation followed at a later date in October.
	I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the focus of the investigation is to establish the cause and all the events leading up to the fire and the reported explosion, and to establish all the circumstances leading up to the tragic deaths of Mr. Wembridge and Mr. Wicker and the injury of others. On the hon. Gentleman's other questions about the involvement of firefighters, the matter is subject to the investigation, so I cannot give him answers until after the investigation has taken place. It is not that I am reluctant to provide full information—I simply think that it is inappropriate to do so until there has been full investigation. I give him an assurance that it will be full, thorough, and transparent. The purpose of any investigation is to find out what exactly happened, and to learn from the investigation's results.
	That is probably all that I can say specifically about the investigation into the fire at Festival Fireworks, but more generally, there are strong controls on the manufacture and storage of explosives. The Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005 update earlier controls under the Explosives Act 1875. Anyone who stores more than a small quantity of fireworks, even for a short period, must apply for a licence or registration. As I said, separation distances for explosive stores are important to protect people in the neighbourhood. The local authority is the licensing authority for smaller-scale storage of less than 2 tonnes—it is the trading standards department in East Sussex—but in some areas, the fire and rescue service is the licensing authority. The Health and Safety Executive is the licensing authority for manufacturing operations and the storage of fireworks over 2 tonnes. Before HSE licences are granted, the applicant must obtain local authority assent, which gives local people the opportunity to comment. Councillors and emergency services, for example, can feed into local decision making, or object to the licence at a public hearing. The regulations place a duty on anyone who manufactures or stores explosives to take appropriate measures to prevent fire or explosion; to limit the extent of any fire or explosion; and to protect people in the event of fire or explosion. There are regular inspection visits.
	As I said in my statement to the House on 7 December, we all fully recognise the contribution that fire and rescue services make to our communities. We should acknowledge the situations that they face on a daily basis—there are two Members in the Chamber who served as firefighters—and the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) made that very point. We should take every opportunity to remind ourselves of the commitment, professionalism and dedication shown by fire service personnel throughout the country, as they play an enormous part in ensuring the safety of our communities. The many years of dedicated service given by Mr. Wembridge and Mr. Wicker made a huge contribution to the protection of the people of East Sussex. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say how grateful we are for their commitment, which is shared by many of their colleagues across the country, and for which they paid the ultimate price. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, responses and letters have come from across the country, including from many people in the fire and rescue services, expressing sadness about the tragic end to the lives of two men whose entire careers were spent trying to save people's lives and protect others.
	The deaths of fire and rescue service staff at operational incidents are very rare, but they are always a cause of great sadness and concern, which is why it is important that the investigation be thorough and detailed. We must establish the facts behind the tragedy. In my statement, I undertook to make a further statement to Parliament once the investigation has concluded. That is the appropriate time to give more details to the House. We must obtain all the facts behind the incident to clarify the situation so that we can learn what happened. We must learn the lessons for the sake of the families grieving for Brian Wembridge and Geoffrey Wicker.